• cm0002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    21 days ago

    Ehhh not really, it’s a good policy to have for most cases, but it IS way too restrictive and there absolutely should be more flexibility.

    For example, if a pre-warp civilization about to go extinct because of a giant ass asteroid. Not a whole lot of good protecting their culture is going to do when they’re extinct.

    But just giving a random pre-warp civilization replicator tech for funsies would be devastating. Just think, what would happen if aliens came and gave replicator tech to our current governments? They’d fucking replicator weapons or some shit.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      21 days ago

      Does the asteroid even count as interference? If the civilization is sufficiently primitive, you can save them from an asteroid without them noticing.

    • andyburke@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 days ago

      This thought experiment is pretty easy:

      if you could alleviate a large amout of suffering and death for a sentient species at little to no cost to yourself, would you?

      If you can do that so trivially that it has no negative impact on you, and you do not do it, are you acting ethically?

      The answers will be yes and no for most people. To me that makes it clear that neither the Prime Directive nor any kind of all-powerful deity can be moral, at least not humanly moral.