Quote Originally Posted by Daerio View Post
1) They aren't "oppressed" in the sense that they're used as slave labor. I would say they're herded more like cattle to "convenient" sections of the planet for them to live their life on. Oppression can be a lot of different things. By the Valakians providing all their food and shelter for them, the Menk will not learn how to grow food or build shelter for themselves. They are stymied in their societal evolution. They cannot grow and build their own culture while the Valakians are there to interfere. (though it is natural for them to be there)
By your own argument, that's supposedly none of your concern, and it shouldn't enter into your considerations. According to the Prime Directive.

This is what I mean; they ignore it whenever it's inconvenient.

2) I'm not seeing the suppression of the Menk as unnatural. The point is, that dynamic of the Valakians being superior to the Menk (which is natural) is ALSO about to come to a NATURAL end when the Valakians NATURALLY become extinct. To interfere with that process is to suppress any society that the Menk could then build for themselves.
Well, the whole idea of "evolutionary dead end" is absolutely 100% unadulterated bollocks. That doesn't happen. And something being "natural" doesn't make it acceptable. That's the point.

At the end, the Enterprise had a full cure. And said, basically "here's some aspirin. Have a nice extinction." Rather than try and improve relations between the Valakians and the Menk, they chose to let the Valakians die out. That's unconscionable.

I just don't think the Prime Directive is a bad idea as a whole. There are circumstances where the moral feeling (often in short-term thinking) is to violate the PD (often at the cost of the long-term) which is why there are so many episodes about it. It's not just a Star Trek thing, there are MANY other Sci-Fi shows that have the same thing going on. In Stargate for example, the Asgards choose not to interfere whenever possible. They do not give out technology because they don't know how that technology will eventually be used. And even this is occasionally disregarded, when there is an Asgard on board a human ship and may have direct control over what happens with that technology in order to prevent a bigger violation.
There's a good argument for a general belief in non-interference. My point is that such a policy cannot be central enough to be any society's "Prime Directive". And that's why there's dozens of exceptions and loopholes built in to the PD, and when even those aren't enough, the starship captains just ignore it outright.

It goes too far and is given far too much scope. That's the issue. It's like how having a citizenship employment program might be a good idea, but requiring every citizen to work "or else" is going too far and arguably evil.

Saying things like, "Look, they keep having to violate the Prime Directive to get things done, so they shouldn't have it at all" is to me, like saying, "Look, police keep having to illegally search people in order to save lives, so we just shouldn't have the 4th amendment." (the one that supposedly prevents illegal search and seizure, for you non-Americans)
The difference is that an illegal police search is never the right thing to do. Whereas breaking the Prime Directive often is. And the show presents many of the cases where it upholds the Prime Directive as a "good thing", when on nearly any objective moral viewpoint, the actions taken are unconscionably immoral.

I would say it's more akin to saying "look, the Patriot Act is needed to protect people, so we're expanding it and having it cancel out the Bill of Rights entirely if they ever conflict". You're making that tool the central pillar of your legal system, and it's a terrible pillar to begin with, even if the ideals it was created to support aren't necessarily evil in and of themselves.

Non-interference is fine, unless harm results from doing so. The problem is the Star Trek stance is that non-interference is mandatory even if harm results.