Prime Directive Debate

“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”

Yesterday Darwin had a thought provoking post about the impact of technologically advanced cultures on less developed cultures.  In the combox discussion there were frequent references to the Prime Directive of Star Trek.  This of course gives me an excellent excuse for posting this examination of the Prime Directive and for me to burnish my credentials as the “Geekier-Than-Thou” member of this blog.Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, has a good discussion here of what the Prime Directive is:

“The Directive states that members of Starfleet are not to interfere in the internal affairs of another species, especially the natural development of pre-warp civilizations, either by direct intervention, or technological revelation. When studying a planet’s civilization, particularly during a planetary survey, the Prime Directive makes it clear that there is to be “No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations.” (TOS: “Bread and Circuses”) Starfleet personnel are required to understand that allowing cultures to develop on their own is an important right and therefore must make any sacrifice to protect cultures from contamination, even at the cost of their own lives.

The Prime Directive is not enforced upon citizens of the Federation. Under the rules as defined in the Directive, a Starfleet crew is forbidden from removing citizens who have interfered with the culture of a world. Violating the directive can result in a court-martial for the offending Starfleet officer or crew. (TNG: “Angel One”)

In all, there are 47 sub-orders in the Prime Directive. (VOY: “Infinite Regress”)

Originally the Directive was a shield for primitive worlds. If such a world was in danger, Starfleet had been known to order ships to save that world, provided it could be done without violating the Directive. (TOS: “The Paradise Syndrome”)

The Directive was later amended, prohibiting Starfleet officers from intervening even if non-intervention would result in the extinction of an entire species or the end of all life on a planet or star system. By the 24th century the Federation had begun applying the Prime Directive to warp-capable species, refusing to interfere in internal matters such as the Klingon Civil War. (TNG: “Pen Pals”, “Homeward”, “Redemption”, “Redemption II”).”

The video that opens this post is from The Star Trek The Next Generation episode Pen Pals, and illustrates well the moral ambiguity that often ensued when Star Fleet officers were faced with a Prime Directive situation.   How can you turn your back on people who need your aid?  How can you be sure that such aid will not have long term calamitous results for the entities you sought to aid?  Is the Prime Directive an absolute as Lieutenant Worf contended, or is there room for interpretation?  What is the guiding purpose of the Prime Directive?

I think that Picard nails it when he says that the Prime Directive was intended for relieving Star Fleet officers from making intervention decisions when their emotions were aroused.  In a time when Star Fleet captains with enormous power at their disposal are often far from the direct control of the Federation I can see much wisdom in this policy.  Of course there are problems with the Prime Directive.

1.    The first problem is that it didn’t work in practice. When the Prime Directive is mentioned in one of the shows, the odds were heavy that the good guys were going to stomp all over the Prime Directive for some noble end.  Some sophistical justification was usually tacked on at the end to justify the violation, but the violation remained clear and glaring.  No consequence resulted from the violation, so one could be excused from assuming that no one in Star Fleet high command really took the Prime Directive all that seriously.

2.    The Prime Directive applied only until such time as the Federation determined that a civilization was ready to join it. Once a civilization joined the Federation intervention was the order of the day.  This indicates that perhaps the Prime Directive was more to benefit the Federation than the alien civilizations encountered by Star Fleet.

3.     Rigid adherence to the Prime Directive could lead to morally abhorrent outcomes. This was well illustrated in the Enterprise episode Dear Doctor where an alien culture is left to die out from a plague that the Enterprise doctor had a cure for so that evolution could take its course and another species on the planet supplant the dying species.  This is one of the coldest and cruelest works of fiction I have seen on television.  The Captain of the Enterprise states:  “Some day, my People are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can’t do out here, should and shouldn’t do. But until someone tells me that they’ve drafted that… directive, I’m going to have to remind myself every day, that we didn’t come out here to play God.” Captain Archer is correct that in not rendering assistance he is not playing God;  instead he is disobeying God in allowing countless deaths he could easily have prevented.

4.    For Catholics I think the Prime Directive at bottom is morally indefensible. One can make an argument, and I think it is a good one, that non-intervention is probably the best policy frequently.  However to adhere to this policy in almost every circumstance is to throw away the command of Christ to love our neighbor.  Loving our neighbor might often mean leaving him alone, but every time?  The Prime Directive is an interesting concept but it pales before “You will love your neighbor as yourself.”

38 Responses to Prime Directive Debate

  • Cogent analysis.

    I enjoyed the mental excercise and I must admit that you are more of a geek than I am becuase I didn’t know there was this depth of knowledge about the Prime Directive. I also cannot speak Klyngon, but I am trying to learn Latin (EL).

    I think we could use something like the Prime Directive for the American Empire. Non-intervention is a great policy – but, as you stated, NOT everytime.

    Our first obligation, our Supreme Prime Directive, if you will is to obey God. Not to play God, but to do His will and that requires that we use the gifts, whatever they be, spiritual or temporal, for His greater honor and glory. Naturally, we suck at it, which is why non-intervention would be best in most situations, like trying to impose Democracy at the barrel of a gun (not that I am against the war in Iraq per se, just its stated goal and the execution).

    Conversly, even though American interests had a hand in the rise of Nazi Germany, would it have been ethical for us to NOT intervene in WWII to stop the spread of fascism and national socialism? Of course, that doesn’t excuse our cooperation with Soviet and Chinese Communism. We stopped Hitler and that was noble but handing half of Europe over to Stalin and China to Mao is not excusable.

    I think we need to keep in mind that the Supreme Prime Directive is a commandment, the first one, all other directives come from that.

  • Oh, the Prime Directive is not only a non-starter for Catholics, it’s pretty much impossible to square with any sane/serious ethical tradition, religious or not.

    In fact, about the only “philosophy” it comes close to jibing with is objectivism, and even Ayn Rand probably would have at least *sold* the vaccine to the dying species in “Dear Doctor.”

    I suspect the PD was the result of something approximating a late-night undergrad bull session amongst the scriptwriters.

  • I suspect the PD was the result of something approximating a late-night undergrad bull session amongst the scriptwriters.

    More likely it was just a convenient plot device. Lots of ST:TOS episodes would have been over in five minutes if Kirk et al had been able to reveal who they were and use the full extent of their technology. You’ll notice that whenever following Directive Prime would hinder advancing the plot, it is promptly abandoned or ignored.

  • Dale’s right, how is it possible to obey the prime directive of Jesus Christ and this prime directive at the same time:

    Matthew 28:19-20
    19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

    That commandment necessitates a cultural and religious intervention with any society that is not converted to the True Faith.

    This not a coercive action, it is one of deep and abiding love for God and His creation.

  • Though it does seem to have a certain appeal for people suffering from a near crippling case of relativism of the youthful variety. Back in the golden age of science fiction (high school) I did have a few people insist to me in all seriousness that the prime directive was moral because it was _wrong_ to impose our ideas of what a good outcome was on other people who might have a different cultural context.

    I don’t think that kind of idealism holds up to any real serious thought or experience, but it does apparently have a certain appeal. Of course, for my part, I was always a Babylon 5 guy rather than a Star Trek guy…

  • Actually, there was an episode (Observer Effect) in the short-lived series, Star Trek: Enterprise, which presented what I believe to be a balanced perspective concerning what was ultimately to become the Prime Directive.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_Effect

    An alien species called the Organians refused to interfere with the dying crew of Enterprise which had contracted a deadly silicon-based virus since these aliens themselves adhered to such a directive.

    Captain Archer, who ultimately discovered their presence nearing the end of the episode, engaged in dialogue with the aliens, acknowledging the apparent soundness behind the reasoning for this Prime Directive they adhered to since when they, the crew of the Enterprise, had actually interfered with more primitive alien races, introducing advanced technology and what not, the results were often disasterous (perhaps that is why and how the Prime Directive itself came into being?*).

    However, he made an impassioned appeal to them, saying that adhering to such a directive in this case was not only foolish but also an act of bloody murder and that if becoming an advanced species meant being absent of compassion, he would rather remain primitive.

    * With regards to what Archer said concerning their experiences with primitive alien races and the harm that ultimately resulted when they interfered with these, this would seem to provide somewhat compelling evidence for why the Prime Directive came into existence, where Picard himself eloquently remarked in a past Next Generation episode:

    “The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy… and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous.

    – Captain Picard (TNG: “Symbiosis”)

  • History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous.

    That’s the theory. My question would be: what’s the evidence. I can think of plenty of examples where a less technologically advanced civilization has been harmed by contact with a more advanced civilization because the more advanced civilization used their superior technology to kill or enslave the less advanced people. Absent that, though, I can’t think of any cases where simply being given access to more advanced technology, medicine, etc. has been harmful. On the contrary, there are plenty of examples (such as, for example, in the wake of the Tsunami a few years back) where this has been very helpful.

  • The flaw with Picard’s logic is that he presumes to have perfect knowledge. It isn’t up to a Starfleet captain to know outcomes. We are not to have anxiety over how things will go, we are to only do our part as Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

    That is the Supreme Prime Directive. Suspecting that Picard is a descendant of ours then we have to assume a) he has knowledge of Christ or at least the Catholic Church is still alive and well in his time or, b) Rodenbury was even more sinister than we thought and interjected this athiestic, relativist Prime Directive in order to deny Christ.

    Either way, it doesn’t work. You CANNOT know that results will always be bad and perhaps a little bit of prudence will help you determine what technology to share and what to hold back all the while it is incumbent on you to improve the primitive species’ situation as pertains to basic needs and share positive cultural values with them and most importantly the Gospel.

    Say you get in your DeLorean and activite your flux capacitor and end up in Rome before Christ. Would it not be incumbent upon you to do all in your power to prevent children, especially girls, from being left to die on the hillside? I know what you’re thinking (y’all are really geeky)doing that you are going to skew the timeline and all manner of craziness can ensue. That’s a nice plot device, but if reverse time-travel were possible do you not think God allowed it? Wouldn’t it still be incumbent on you to OBEY His commandments and leave the outcome up to Him?

    Prime Directive may be a plot device, it may also be a tool of the devil to insert relativism into our culture through media entertainment. Evil has never had better marketing.

  • Blackadder:

    That’s the theory. My question would be: what’s the evidence.

    Did you even read my previous comment?

    I believe that was one of the things that that prequel, Star Trek: Enterprise, attempted to answer.

    Again, it would seem that Captain Archer’s previous interferences with primitive races by introducing advanced technology and what not, and the negative repercussions that ultimately came as the result, would seem to have provided the basis for why the Prime Directive ultimately came into being.

    This is why in that episode, Observer Effect, he couldn’t really fault the Organians for this Prime Directive that they seem to subscribe to due to his own set of experiences; however, he did fault them for the fact that in the particularly fatal circumstances facing his crew, if an advanced race were to act absent compassion, that race wouldn’t be so advanced after all since it lost that sense of compassion he felt integral even to an advanced culture.

  • So the man-made rules are absolute until they are no longer convenient to the rule makers.

    That makes sense.

  • e,

    Star Trek: Enterprise is a work of fiction. The fact that a character in a work of fiction says “history shows X” doesn’t mean that history actually shows X.

  • American Knight:

    Say that I am part of a complement that possesses advanced technology that happened to be nuclear-based.

    Suppose that I encountered a race on a planet that is exactly the kind of midiaeval earth.

    Their inhabitants are all dying of a deadly plague.

    Now, we possess a nuclear-based apparatus that would ultimately cure these peoples; however, the cure itself requires perennial treatments.

    So, tell me, if we were to provide such potentially deadly technology to this relatively primitive race; do you really believe that doing so would not result in harm?

    For one thing, the inhabitants themselves obviously wouldn’t possess a thorough understanding of the technology that we do.

    For another, all the negative episodes of our own people’s history (e.g., the devestating historical events we collectively endured due to misuse of this technology) where we as a people ultimately learned wisdom never to misuse this technology again, could not really be transferred to a comparatively primitive people such as the ones here.

    Why?

    Because absent of actual experience, like a curious and even errant child, no matter if one were to warn them, they’ll simply go off on their own and misuse the technology regardless not only due to an overwhelming sense of curiousity but also due to their comparatively adolescent mindset as a race where they do not know any better.

    What you’ll likely discover, in the end, is that if you were to revisit that primitive race years later after endowing them with such technology, you’ll find that they had eventually wiped themselves out because they had come to actually utilize that technology in order to gain power over other warring factions.

    Hence, there are delicate considerations in the matter that you are obviously neglecting.

  • Blackadder:

    Star Trek: Enterprise is a work of fiction. The fact that a character in a work of fiction says “history shows X”; doesn’t mean that history actually shows X.

    I was simply providing you the background on how the Prime Directive in the Star Trek Universe came into being because of Captain Archer’s own (mis-)adventures in the Star Trek Universe.

    How, in heaven’s name, did you actually come to think that we were discussing about something that resembled current/historical reality?

    Note:

    Captain Archer had these set of negative experiences in the maiden voyage of the original enterprise in the Star Trek universe as a result of his deliberately interfering with a primitive race; therefore, the Prime Directive came into being in the Star Trek universe

    /=

    Captain Archer had these set of negative experiences in the maiden voyage of the original enterprise in the Star Trek universe as a result of his deliberately interfering with a primitive race; therefore, the Prime Directive came into being in our universe.

  • How, in heaven’s name, did you actually come to think that we were discussing about something that resembled current/historical reality?

    Don’t play dumb and don’t treat me like I’m an idiot. You’ve been an active participant in this discussion and you know very well that it involves the application of PD to current or historical reality.

  • My original comments were strictly with regards to how the PD came into existence in the Star Trek Universe.

    Obviously, there is no Captain Archer, as far as I know, who is gallavanting in outer space in some space ship called Enterprise, deliberately interfering with primitive races.

    You’re better than that, Blackadder; don’t play the obtuse card.

    I have much higher regard for you.

  • Technology is just a tool.

    Our medieval ancestors were perhaps less technically proficient than we, but they were also, probably more moral, holy and pious.

    Man has NOT changed at all since he was created. We may have more knowledge of God’s universe, we certainly have been given more revelations but we are basically the same.

    The only moral advancement has been made becuase of Christ’s sacrifice and teaching and communion.

    So if we assume that Star Trek takes place in our future then the Church will still be there and man will essentially still be the same. Take that technology and bring it back to today and we would have the same dispositions for proper use or ill.

    This is much like the gun control debate. We need to control guns becuase guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. This false permise assumes that the wrong hands, presumably attached to wrong heads will obey gun control laws while they vilate ever other law and moral precept.

    If you give me a nuclear weapon, I am confident that I would NOT use it.

    A certain President of a certain country that used to be ruled by King Darius in ancient times — may be not so much.

    So the Pime Directive is nothing more than hubris, relativism and happy horse manure.

  • American Knight:

    You didn’t answer my question.

    Would you provide such a race with that kind of advanced technology or not?

  • There is not enough information to make that statement definitively. I would do whatever, to the best of my knowledge at the time, fulfils my baptismal promise of loving my neigbor our of love for God. If it saves lives I would do it. We all would have to.

  • Blackadder
    it seems that the Star Trek guys are always doing more of a “hand out hand grenades and bio-labs” type interference, instead of the “install a couple of solar powered water purifiers and a windmill powered well” type interference.

    Like I said on the prior topic– Fleeters are morons. They’ll choose to tweak a culture along Nazi lines because it’s organized.

    I can’t think of a single “turned out bad” interference that star fleet did where any random 20-something enlisted kid couldn’t have come up with a better plan that had fewer risks.

  • American Knight:

    Now you can see why Captain Archer himself remarked when confronted with a choice of bestowing advanced technology to a technologically inferior race in desperate need of it (remember: his time was way before the Prime Directive ever even came into being):

    “Some day, my People are going to come up with some sort of a doctrine, something that says what we can and can’t do out here, should and shouldn’t do. But until someone tells me that they’ve drafted that… directive, I’m going to have to remind myself every day, that we didn’t come out here to play God.”

  • No e.,

    I don’t see it. I know your question was designed to get me in that trap, you may be an amateur attorney :)

    Archer’s well intentioned sentiment may very well have lead to the illogical (Vulcan pun intended) construct of the Prime Directive.

    The road to hell is paved with those kind of intentions.

    We are to keep His commandments becuase we love Him.

    The Prime Directive is a violation of His commandment so it is false no matter how well intentioned.

    We are not to know what will happen, we are only responsible for obeying God’s rules as we work. The Prime Directive is hubristic because in it Fleeters presume to know what is best. They don’t. Only God knows what is best.

  • Actually, even Captain Archer himself thought that such a draconian application of the principle (before, it was simply some prerogative the Vulcans handed to them, which he & his Enterprise crew personally disagreed with but eventually found it to be generally justified) was wrong, as evidenced in many episodes.

    That said, I don’t think Captain Archer himself, who could be considered the Forefather of the PD, would agree with the strictly literal interpretation (without noting the Spirit of the Law, as it were) that subsequent generations at Star Fleet gave to it.

    It reminds me of how later generations of Americans are doing same with respect to our Constitution, who more so than not cling to an absurd literal interpretation of it and, indeed, deliberately defy the very Spirit of that Law which our Forefathers actually intended.

  • The only law with spirit is the Law of the Spirit.

    The Consitution is man’s law and it has no point if it has spirit. Law is fixed until legitimately changed; otherwise what is the point?

    Rules that are not fixed may as well not be rules.

    We need to read the law in CONTEXT not in spirit. This is true for what used to be our Constitution and it is true for the PD. The difference is the Constitution conforms to God’s Law, the PD doesn NOT!

  • AK-
    I think he means “spirit of the law” in the not doing something technically legal but totally against the idea– ie, the law says no marrying girls under 18, so folks just enter common law marriage until they’re 18…..

  • OK.

    I suppose I’m just overy sensative these days becuase of the dictatorship of reletavism.

    This living breathing Constitution BS is getting really old.

    Laws are a gift. We are free becuase of the Law and man’s laws are to be written in light of the Spirit, which is Truth.

    The laws we are handed these days are anything by truth and have no regard for the Truth. It is disgusting and I fear that we will end up with a future like the socialistic brave new world of Star Trek, or no future at all. I prefer the future of Star Wars, a heroic battle to slay the Empire and restire the Old Republic.

  • We need to read the law in CONTEXT…

    The Spirit of the Law actually means that you have to keep in CONTEXT the very reason for the law.

    It would seem Foxfier has a much clearer understanding of this than you do.

    It is disgusting and I fear that we will end up with a future like the socialistic brave new world of Star Trek, or no future at all. I prefer the future of Star Wars, a heroic battle to slay the Empire and restire the Old Republic.

    Rest assured, Star Trek and Star Wars are all works of fiction.

    Besides, socialism (or, rather, a variant thereof) has long been in existence for quite some time now in America and, indeed, the socialist project is even being further extended currently to much greater degree by the present Administration.

  • e.,

    I conceded the point when Foxfier pointed it out. Did you really have to go and beat up on me for it?

    I think our language can be more poetic when we are all on the same page. As in standing on something solid, you know, like the truth. Sadly, we aren’t all (I am not referring to you or most people here, I am referring to America in general)on the same page.

    As you cogently pointed out we are already socialist and on our way to full-blown communism. I suppose I am just quick to the trigger because socialism isn’t only an economic system, a false one at that, but it is a cultural sickness that perverts men’s minds.

    Be wary, be very wary.

  • American Knight:

    I conceded the point when Foxfier pointed it out. Did you really have to go and beat up on me for it?

    Apologies, but that was not my intent; I was merely amused at the irony in that what you declared then (and coincidentally accused the Spirit of), was actually much aligned with what the Spirit of the Law meant. That’s all.

    I suppose I am just quick to the trigger because socialism isn’t only an economic system, a false one at that, but it is a cultural sickness that perverts men’s minds. Be wary, be very wary.

    Believe me, friend, whenever I witness even mere rhetoric resembling that of the Spectre haunting Europe employed likewise concerning America, I instantly become leery of exactly this kind of perversion that is indeed socialism.

  • Picture-perfect example of why I really dislike PC talk– stuff with a good, solid, serviceable and honest standard meaning gets twisted to the point where I can totally understand folks twitching from the phrase “spirit of the law.”

    Sounds a lot like the “penumbra of an emanation” we all now and ‘love’, eh?

    Shoot, even the word “choice” totally out of any birth-related context makes me twitch…. Charity is similarly abused….

    *sigh* How did I get on a serious note when what I *really* want is to find a good geek board to discuss who would provide a better Pope, the Cardassians or the Vulcans?

  • Pius XII Foxfier is a good example of a Vulcan pope. Julius II, Cardassian all the way.

  • *sigh* How did I get on a serious note when what I *really* want is to find a good geek board to discuss who would provide a better Pope, the Cardassians or the Vulcans?

    Neither… it would always be human.

    As even the prequel attempted to make clear, it was the human race that was ultimately destined to serve a greater purpose, which was ultimately gathering into One all foreign races into a unified whole, later known as the Federation.

    That same special destiny, I would imagine, could easily translate into the enduring fact that only a human could be a better Pope, due to this faculty unique to humans (at least, according to ST/Enterprise lore), which enables them the remarkable talent for engendering peaceful, diplomatic relations amongst disparate alien races.

  • Ambassador Soval: “We don’t know what to do about Humans. Of all the species we’ve made contact with, yours is the only one we can’t define. You have the arrogance of Andorians, the stubborn pride of Tellarites. One moment you’re as driven by your emotions as Klingons, and the next you confound us by suddenly embracing logic!”

    Admiral Forrest: “I’m sure those qualities are found in every species.”

    Ambassador Soval: “Not in such confusing abundance.”

    Admiral Forrest: “Ambassador… are Vulcans afraid of Humans?”

    (Soval answers with a slight nod)

    Admiral Forrest: “Why?”

    Ambassador Soval: “Because, there is one species you remind us of.”

    Admiral Forrest: “Vulcans.”

    Ambassador Soval: “There are those on the High Command who wonder what Humans would achieve in the century to come, and they don’t like the answer.”

    Admiral Forrest: “We’re not the Klingons. We only want to be your partners, to do what the nations of Earth have learned to do: to work together in common cause.”

  • E.- I don’t generally accept Enterprise, since they felt the need to pull a “it was all a holodeck” thing at the end, but given that the humanoid species are inter-fertile and several of the half-breeds have been shown to be fertile themselves (for example, a crewman who’s got a Romulan grandfather) I’d have to consider them the same species…which is really a pain for the atheistic version, even with the “seeded DNA” ep in TNG.

    What a horribly irrational thing for a Vulcan to say! Sounds oddly racist, even….

  • I can think of several examples where trying to do the right this has backfired. Think of all of the developing countries particularly in Africa that we brought medicine and doctors too back in the 50’s and 60’s. As a result the infant mortality rate dropped significantly. Good thing right?

    Well maybe not. These cultures have spent millenia having 10 or more children each assuming that 80% of them will die before becoming adults. The high birthrate was needed to maintain their numbers.

    However, with modern medicine, the mortality rate dropped while the birthrate remained high. Populations skyrocketed, and the subsistence agriculture they had practiced for centuries no longer supported them. What followed was massive poverty and famine.

    This was a major problem beginning in the 1950’s and 60’s when Star Trek was created. It was also a problem that the majority of the population was not really away of. Few people back then realized the negative impact of providing food and medicine to people who need it, hence the writers developed the Prime Directive as a plot device to point out that even well intentioned actions can have disastrous consequences.

  • Also, there is a fairly good chance that the church wouldn’t play a significant role 350 years in the future. If current trends continue, there will be very few Christians in 2350AD. The only two religious groups that continue to grow are Islam and non believers.

    Of course this isn’t taking into account the prediction of Star Trek that there will be hundreds of other worlds in the Federation. I doubt any of them will have religions similar to those on earth.

  • The assumption that current trends will continue is generally a losing bet.
    (That statement is the only trend that I can think of where it’s a good bet it’ll continue….)

    Africa is not in trouble just because of their birth rate– systemic corruption that prevents long term improvement for short term personal advantage is a much bigger problem. (Very symbolically, there’s a tendency to sell the seeds for next year’s crop.)

  • 2/23/2010
    I sit down and typed in the words for Prime Directive For A Health Care Reform, and it was like wow, just look at all this stuff,
    God vs./ or and the Prime Directive, As a Star Trek fan for over 30 years, I wish to see in to this blog, but I am a little lost so let me show you the tomorrow,”So as these Government Officials get your vote and send you off to you room so that all can be fixed by their Artificial Intelligence, {because they have been stuck in that Matrix} and now all they can do is see us as variables in a equation as dollar numbers, they do try to see, but without that Mathematical A.I. They are so lost. This is the same with Health Care Insurance Companies, as A.I. shows the way for D.N.A testing and other inventive forms of how to calculate the dollar as a human input.
    It has been stated that because of diversity that Government Officials must intervine,For days I worked the word diversity in my mind and it came to me that because of this it is not Americas weakness it is our greatest strength. And this is how I will show you.
    Constitution-
    Bill Of Rights –
    The Declaration of Independence-
    United under one forum, builds what is called the Trinity of the Protection Of Laws. This is because these Laws were built by people of faith who gave thanks to God for this wisdom. One would have to see and admire the simplicity of the three as one and at the same time they maintain their independence.”
    But I do offer my congratulations again to the Administration and theses Law Makers In And for The People Of The United States Of America.
    Henry Massingale
    FASC Concepts in and for Pay It Forward
    http://www.fascmovement.mysite.com.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .