StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Due to moral and logistical outrage from the Federation populace, the Federation Council is rewriting the Prime Directive to be less cumbersome and more pragmatic, as well as less dogmatic and more morally bound. By an act of Q, you(and whoever else participates in the thread) are to be one of the writers of the new Prime Directive, and redefine Federation and Starfleet policy when it comes to worlds and peoples who are less than warp capable. If you want to include a section wherein each new world a Starfleet comes across, they can take ten percent of the world's population as slaves, feel free, and it will be voted on by the Federation Council, and most likely ratified.

Now, the original purpose of the prime directive was to give Starfleet officers a stance to take whenever dealing with a developing society, and the responsibilities therein are:

Taken from Memory Alpha

* Providing knowledge of other inhabited worlds (even if individuals or governments in the society were already aware of such)
* Providing knowledge of technologies or science
* Taking actions to generally affect a society's overall development
* Taking actions which support one faction within a society over another
* Helping a society escape the negative consequences of its own actions
* Helping a society escape a natural disaster known to the society, even if inaction would result in a society's extinction.
* Subverting or avoiding the application of a society's laws
* Interfering in the internal affairs of a society

There were stated exceptions for Starfleet officers, where they could interfere:

Taken from Memory Alpha

* The society already knew of and contacted the Federation (e.g., seeking assistance; treaty matters)
* The society sent a general distress call to any space-faring cultures who might pick it up
* A material injustice involving a Federation citizen would occur absent the interference
* Compliance with specific (and valid) orders that could not be followed if the Prime Directive fully applied (e.g., ancillary to a war with the Federation; first contact missions; diplomatic missions; trade negotiations)
* The society hails or attacks a Federation vessel (TOS: "The Corbomite Maneuver"; VOY: "Thirty Days")
* Rescue missions
* The society is in diplomatic discussions with the Federation
* The society was previously interfered with by Federation citizens, whether or not in violation of the Prime Directive (e.g., prior to the Prime Directive being in force; accidental interference).
* The society was previously interfered with by non-Federation citizens (e.g., Klingons) in a manner that would have violated the Prime Directive had it been done by Starfleet personnel
* The society had been contacted by Starfleet but, upon recommendation by the contact/survey team, the planet was nonetheless subject to the Prime Directive as though such contact had not occurred.

So, how would you rewrite it? What would you keep, what would you add, and what would you remove from the Prime Directive?

I would absolutely remove the prohibition against saving civilisations from natural disasters if possible. Openly revealing the presence of starfaring societies would be permissible as a last resort. Also, I woudl remove the prohibition regarding helping civilisations out with problems of their own making.

Those two seem to be the source of the most egregious problems with the Prime Directive.

In my mind the reliance on warp being the barrier is to high as it could take centuries of science before FTL become possible depending on the planet and natives in question. I'd set the bar lower to begin with to either "Has constructed spaceships" or "Has made landing on another body in their system. Basically my aim is set the bar as such that Apollo for Humanity would have been enough to cross the barrier to contact.

But then I've always a two stage prime directive. The first stage when interplanetary travel has been achieved is a simple "Hello Aliens this is the Federation, we exist" while the second stage offer of admission and formal relations waits until warp drive is achieved.

I want that promise inherent that until warp is developed we won't bother you. If you seek our help about some great disaster or disease we are going to leave a communication station in a Lagrange point, here are the codes to get in if you need to call us. Don't want to talk? Here are the codes to go in shut the station down.

If you don't want us, we won't bother you. Your system will be declared off limits and those who attempt to violate that ban will be punished by our laws. This is the only way we have found to ensure that civilizations may develop safely.

*Edit
If they don't even have space travel, diverting space rocks is fine, as is saving a civilization from solar flares or something with the goal on avoiding contact if at all possible.

1. A society must be allowed to develop normally without interference, unless it is in danger from a force that is capable of causing widespread death or destruction.
2. The Captain of any Federation starship is required to use any means at his / her / it's disposal to prevent or reduce the destruction inflicted on the society in order to save as many lives as possible.
3. Unless absolutely necessary, the Captain must take care to avoid revealing themselves to the planetary population and must attempt to aid the civilization as covertly as possible.

What this does is simple. It allows a civilization to develop normally without meddling or changing their natural evolution, but anything like a worldwide plague, asteroid impact, alien attack, etc... will be handled by the Federation ship. If they can do things sneaky fashion...like beaming a plague antidote into the atmosphere or using a small nudge from a tractor beam to move the asteroid (instead of blowing it up). World Wars would be tricky but can be handled by creative use of sabotage (for instance) of WMDs.

Starfleet should be morally and legally obligated to protect life, and the old Prime Directive gave them a way to be moral cowards about it. The new one should require them to save lives but not interfere too much. So a small brush war or small disease outbreak should be overlooked, since a civilization must be able to handle such things on their own. But a world-ending epidemic or nuclear conflict should be stopped to prevent mass casualties.

@Borgholio
I personally wouldn't use the word 'required' there, Borgholio. Especially if the Prime Directive is the highest law binding any starfleet captain. What happens when there are legit conflict of interest? What if a Captain faces a choice between saving an alien world from a disaster, or a federation colony from attack? What if the only way to a disaster involves sacrificing his ships or his crew? Morally perhaps that would be laudable but should it be legally obligatory to do so?

I'd also hesitate to mandate intervention in the case of war. Or at least severely restrict the extant a Captain is allowed to interfere. Like it or not, if races are engaging in warfare of their own free will do you have the right to stop them? Perhaps enforce a ceasefire and attempt to diplomatically resolve things, yes. But the Federation can't be expected to take over and run war torn planets 'for their own good'.

---

Personally, I'd take the TOS approach. The Prime Directive would be strictly limit to pre-warp civilisation. If you want rules governing interaction with peer civilisations, that's gets its own directives. 'Interference' by technology or informational transference would be prohibited and this would be the absolute sticking point Communication and making pre-warp civilisations aware of 'extra-terrestrial' life would be prohibited but exceptions on communication if they are somehow already aware but this would be limited and again, no information or technology would be given out that could alter their own growth.

The Captain would be given explicit discretion to breach the directive in the case of natural disasters, plagues and so on. However, when this discretion is utilised, it would trigger automatic review by a board of enquiry upon returning to a suitable authority. (be it a federation planet/ starbase/ grouping of senior captain that can form a panel) Though the law would be worded to make it clear that this is not considered a mark of dishonor on the Captain. (unless the board finds he has acted improperly of course at which case a full court-martial will be convened) The purpose of which is to underline the seriousness of the directive for the Captains and make sure it is never broken lightly. Hopefully, precedent would soon pile in favour of saving people from nasty things.


So basically I'd keep it as is but specifically limit it to pre-FTL cultures and untie Captain's hands when it comes to humanitarian live saving measure but implement an automatic review of the case to make it doesn't get abused.

Lower the bar to First Contact.

If a civilization is taking actions to invite First Contact then that invitation should be accepted. Thus, if a planet starts launching probes, sending signals into space then a Federation ship can pop in for a meet & greet. The Federation should actually realize this is a good idea because of the history of probes from Earth causing issues later. I.E V'ger

As for the Prime Directive rules:
1) Do not give our technology away unless required
2) Do not interfere in the affairs of other civilizations unless invited or a greater harm would occur to the Federation through non-intervention

A pragmatic Federation will not really care about a random race unless it provides some benefit to them. Which is ironically, what Insurrection demonstrated when the Feds were desperately sending the E-E to induct new members into their club. It seems fairly reasonable that a Federation interpretation will revolve around "Needs of the Many vs. Needs of the One" so if intervention in the affairs of one benefits the many, do what needs to be done.

I don't think FC with a pre-warp civ is a good idea, unless the Feds were willing to go the whole way and give them warp tech as well. IMO if the Feds met with a pre-warp civ and deliberately withheld warp drive I would imagine the populace would be pretty pissed off and resentful, especially if they are still a long way from obtaining that tech. IMO that could potentially cause more harm than if the Feds waited at least until the civ achieved warp flight. IMO the more development a civ can do on its own before FC, the better.

If a civilization is attracting the attention of it's neighbors with signals and probes then FC should be done regardless of their technology. If nothing for the simple fact it avoids the potential anger and resentment later when the civilization learns their neighbors have been ignoring them.

I actually think the Asgard in SG-1 had the best mindset for how to handle First Contact with less developed races. Introduce yourselves briefly, leave means for the civilization to contact you when they are ready then fuck off and leave well enough alone unless something demands otherwise. If the population want to be pissed off and resentful - go ahead and contact one of the other major powers, I'm sure the Borg will happily give them a technological upgrade.

I personally wouldn't use the word 'required' there, Borgholio. Especially if the Prime Directive is the highest law binding any starfleet captain. What happens when there are legit conflict of interest? What if a Captain faces a choice between saving an alien world from a disaster, or a federation colony from attack? What if the only way to a disaster involves sacrificing his ships or his crew? Morally perhaps that would be laudable but should it be legally obligatory to do so?

I see your point, but my problem is that we're assuming we change the Prime Directive itself, not the attitudes of the thousands of captains in Starfleet who grew up obeying the original PD. Knowing how smart some of them are, if they are not legally bound to help these younger civilizations, they might be able to find a way to weasel out of it with a convenient excuse. For instance, "Oh I can't spend time deflecting this asteroid because I need to assist a Federation colony that suffered a pirate attack last week...".

Now if we CAN reasonably expect a vast majority of Starfleet captains to obey the spirit of the new PD and only avoid helping a younger race if there TRULY is a more dire threat or emergency somewhere else...then we can omit the "required" part. But again, that all depends on changing their attitudes in addition to the text of the Prime Directive.

Here's how I would approach it:

1. A planet must accept and study/research advanced astronomy and its related fields, (including physics, chemistry, etc) to the point of being able to launch and maintain *at least* a network of satellites.

2. A planet must not have any sort of controlling dogma that would make them directly hostile toward the possibility of other intelligent life, and their society must reflect an ability to reason and accept others not like themselves.

3. A planet must not own and/or propagate slavery of other intelligent beings.

4. A planet must not operate under a tyrannical/dictatorial government who exploits or abuses its populace; Basic (human) rights must be protected for a planet's inhabitants.

5. The planet must have demonstrated an ability to either do away with weapons of mass destruction or an ability to keep them under tight and reliable control, (i.e. if you have massive nukes but they are secured and no one in the government has an itchy trigger finger, you'll be considered).


My difficulty comes from where the Federation steps in to help or not - should they interfere with a situation that the inhabitants themselves caused? Should the Federation help a populace that is under the thumb of a cruel dictator? If the inhabitants of a planet are, say, some sort of parasitic species that requires unwilling hosts in order to survive, should they be saved? What if a planet is taking their first steps into space, but using an extremely dangerous form of tech, or if thir intent behind traveling outward is conquest and oppression?

I think it would need to be determined if the problem facing the society is (or is potentially) catastrophic or not. Using some of your examples, an oppressed society is not always going to remain that way. We have many examples of successful revolutions on our own world and we have learned many lessons from them. Nation-building (IMO) would be meddling and should be discouraged. A parasitic species that, by way of it's own evolution needs hosts (willing or otherwise), isn't necessary evil. If they cannot survive without hosts, then would anybody have the right to eradicate them simply for doing what is perfectly normal and natural to them?

Now if a society is using a form of spaceflight technology that is very dangerous and could harm other ships traveling through the area, then the Feds should be able to introduce them to safer tech (since they're a space-faring civilization anyways, the cultural impact may be acceptable). If they are preparing to leave their solar system on a mission of conquest (say, they have heard the radio transmissions of a nearby civilization and seek to enslave them), then it would be prudent to nip that in the butt before they cause any damage. Warp in system, tell them, "We know what you're planning to do and we won't allow it. Either you act peacefully towards your neighbors or you will not be allowed out of your solar system. As an example of what will happen if you ignore our warning, watch this asteroid over here." *BOOM* "Any questions?"

What is the intent of the Prime Directive ?

Because that is what we should try to uphold as we tweak it. My understanding is that it's to stop people interfering in a culture and making things worse. While some interference is done to exploit the locals, even interference done with the best of intentions can go badly.

So any exceptions to the non-interference rule need to be narrowly defined. So I'd suggest only allowing contact if:
- It is to prevent an external threat to the civilization. Eg an asteroid.
- It is to prevent someone else interfering.
- It is to prevent the species extinction and the interference will remain unnoticed until the situation has passed the point where that species can stop it on their own. For example, if it's a nuclear war, then covertly sabotaging the missiles is allowed. But the effects of the sabotage must remain unnoticed until the launch is out of the hands of members of the species in question.

If it is possible to deal with the situation without the knowledge of the civilization in question they must be kept unaware.

Crazedwraith's suggestion of an automatic review any time interference happens to make sure it was done for the right reasons is a good one.

The barrier of the civilization developing warp travel looks reasonable. Not because that is the point where a civilization is advanced enough to have earned First Contact, but because that is the point at which is becomes impossible to hide from them. It is also the point where that species has become able to interfere with civilizations less advanced than itself.

bilateralrope wrote:What is the intent of the Prime Directive ?

Because that is what we should try to uphold as we tweak it. My understanding is that it's to stop people interfering in a culture and making things worse. While some interference is done to exploit the locals, even interference done with the best of intentions can go badly.

So any exceptions to the non-interference rule need to be narrowly defined. So I'd suggest only allowing contact if:
- It is to prevent an external threat to the civilization. Eg an asteroid.
- It is to prevent someone else interfering.
- It is to prevent the species extinction and the interference will remain unnoticed until the situation has passed the point where that species can stop it on their own. For example, if it's a nuclear war, then covertly sabotaging the missiles is allowed. But the effects of the sabotage must remain unnoticed until the launch is out of the hands of members of the species in question.

If it is possible to deal with the situation without the knowledge of the civilization in question they must be kept unaware.

Crazedwraith's suggestion of an automatic review any time interference happens to make sure it was done for the right reasons is a good one.

The barrier of the civilization developing warp travel looks reasonable. Not because that is the point where a civilization is advanced enough to have earned First Contact, but because that is the point at which is becomes impossible to hide from them. It is also the point where that species has become able to interfere with civilizations less advanced than itself.

I look at the Prime Directive as a way to curtail Federation personnel from interfering in the "natural progression" of a planet's native intelligent species. The key here, as far as I am concerned, is the word "natural" - if there are outside forces, (some 3rd party, some extraplanetary threat beyond the inhabitants' control, or some threat that is the result of an extraplanetary agent), how close to said planet or severe of an impact should be required before taking action?

Thing about "natural" is that planet-wide plagues and asteroid impacts are often quite "natural". If you only allow the Feds to interfere in things that aren't natural, you're dooming countless trillions of people to death.

bilateralrope wrote:For example, if it's a nuclear war, then covertly sabotaging the missiles is allowed. But the effects of the sabotage must remain unnoticed until the launch is out of the hands of members of the species in question.

Would this permit Starfleet to interfere with a Hiroshima/Nagasaki level usage of nuclear weapons? Far below the level of a "total exchange" event. Hiroshima/Nagasaki certainly shorten the second world war.

biostem wrote:A planet must not own and/or propagate slavery of other intelligent beings

How would this effect a planet in the situation Earth currently finds itself in, where slavery is rare, but does exist is some regions? Perhaps it would be enough to restrict contact to areas outside those regions. It is a consideration that from orbit it might not be possible to determine if slavery exists, and the existence of slavery might be discovered only after contact.

Tribble wrote:I don't think FC with a pre-warp civ is a good idea ...

I believe that if a civilization is the sociological and tech equal to say 23rd century Earth, but lacks a warp drive, that First Contact shouldn't be forbidden.

Borgholio wrote: Starfleet should be morally and legally obligated to protect life

Obligated might not be the best term to use, how about "if possible." During the course of the Dominion War, the possibilities to help a young civilization outside the Federation easily could have been impossible/impractical.

*

Some thought might be give to who gets contacted within a young civilization. Avoiding government agencies and the news media, and instead having low level interactions with members of the general populace. This might be good for social and culture investigations, and as a way of determining whether a official meeting would be wise. Ground teams wouldn't necessarily have to conceal their off-world origins.

FaxModem1 wrote:So, how would you rewrite it? What would you keep, what would you add, and what would you remove from the Prime Directive?

Starfleet may not initiate contact with a civilization that is not capable of at least interplanetary travel, but Starfleet may respond to any attempt by a civilization to establish contact with other intelligent life.

Starfleet must intervene to prevent the extinction of a civilization. Starfleet may also intervene to prevent widespread destruction by natural events that the civilization cannot prevent or mitigate on their own. Starfleet must take all practical measures to minimize the effect of their intervention on the development of the civilization.

Starfleet may take measures to prevent the exploitation of a civilization by a more advanced space-faring civilization. Starfleet may not initiate negotiations for trade with a pre-warp civilization without orders from and oversight from the Federation Council. No planet will be considered for Federation membership until it has a unified planetary government.

That should cover most situations, I think. The idea is to protect and preserve less advanced civilizations without taking advantage of them.

Panashe wrote:

bilateralrope wrote:For example, if it's a nuclear war, then covertly sabotaging the missiles is allowed. But the effects of the sabotage must remain unnoticed until the launch is out of the hands of members of the species in question.

Would this permit Starfleet to interfere with a Hiroshima/Nagasaki level usage of nuclear weapons? Far below the level of a "total exchange" event. Hiroshima/Nagasaki certainly shorten the second world war.

I would not allow interference in the case of limited use of nuclear weapons. There is too much of a risk that the well meaning captains making things worse because they don't have time to fully understand the situation. Imagine a Starfleet ship arriving only hours before Nagasaki gets nuked. They can tell that Hiroshima was hit. They can tell that there is a second nuclear weapon being flown towards Japan. But they aren't going to be able to find out much more before it's too late to stop Nagasaki.

There is also the fact that the Starfleet ship won't be staying around. They will be leaving. To take Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an example, maybe stopping them would lead to a longer war. Or maybe the US just builds some more nuclear weapons and uses them to end WW2.

biostem wrote:I look at the Prime Directive as a way to curtail Federation personnel from interfering in the "natural progression" of a planet's native intelligent species. The key here, as far as I am concerned, is the word "natural" - if there are outside forces, (some 3rd party, some extraplanetary threat beyond the inhabitants' control, or some threat that is the result of an extraplanetary agent), how close to said planet or severe of an impact should be required before taking action?

Any third party interference needs to be stopped. Preferably in a way that the low tech planet doesn't know about. But the third party needs to know that the Federation will not tolerate interference. Which means military action against the third parties holdings outside of the low tech planets system would not violate the Prime Directive. Nor would diplomatic pressure.

As for "extraplanetary threat beyond the inhabitants' control", for things that can be stopped without the low tech civilization knowing there would be no lower limit on what they are allowed to stop. But captains would be expected to consider other factors like their current mission and if the low-tech civilization is likely to learn anything from the threat proceeding unobstructed.

For things that can't be stopped without the civilization finding out, the threshold for interfering becomes much higher. Because they also have to consider things like a civilization who they saved from one planet killer asteroid not doing anything useful about a second because they assume that Starfleet will come back and save them a second time.

bilateralrope wrote:But the third party needs to know that the Federation will not tolerate interference.

There would have to be reasonable limitations on this. On how far afield this protection policy extends in terms of distance, if a pre-tech world in located in the core of the Federation, completely surrounded by Member star systems is one thing, however if the pre-tech world is in the outer marches of explored space would there be the opportunity for the same level of protection?

There's also the question of who the third party is. If a one system republic is sniffing around the next system over, okay warn them off. If it's the Klingon Empire, and the pre-tech world is in open unclaimed space, would the Federation risk a incident (possible leading to war) for the sake of the world in question?

I actually like the sort of setup the Honorverse had with the Medusans in the first book. Don't meddle in internal politics, don't take sides in wars, but DO land and tell the locals there are space people. Give them the respect to deal with them fairly as adults. Set up an embassy, maybe a trading post for more advanced worlds or if they have something you particularly need (say magic healing/anti-aging particles) but recognize all resources as belonging to the locals and have all deals scrutinized by higher authority. DO set up clinics to give the locals modern medicine, DO participate in relief, or rescue for major disasters.

To a point, though. Would that be a good idea in ancient Egypt or something? you'd end up being worshipped as gods - they wouldn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what aliens were.

Prometheus Unbound wrote:To a point, though. Would that be a good idea in ancient Egypt or something? you'd end up being worshiped as gods - they wouldn't have the comprehension abilities to understand what aliens were.

Ancient Egyptians were human, the same kind of humans we are. They would be no different than modern man in their ability to comprehend complex situations. As long as you treat them with respect and take great pains to never be demeaning to them because their technological capabilities, or lack there of, they won't fear you. Will there be people that remain unreasonable? Sure, but with enough time that'll change.

Also in every interaction with a senior politician or diplomat I would suggest always treating them as equals and never lording yourselves over them. Hell the very idea that technologically inferior peoples/tribes/nations have the tendency to go that route has very little support in most of our own real history and is more the result of historical white wash. First contact with island nations in the pacific and south america between local natives and western expeditions more often than not involved the natives doing a lot of staring in amazement at what the explorers could do and at what amazing things they had, and was followed closely by "hey ah, you wanna trade something? I'll give you a goat and a bunch of coconuts for one of those shiny sticks that go pop..." Rarely did they think that the people with those shiny sticks called guns were actually gods. I'm sure there were exceptions however.

Ancient Egyptians were humans (of course!) but they were limited in their understanding of the world, compared to us. We take planes for granted and people on this site more or less know how they work but try explaining aerodynamics, drag, delta v, jet engines etc to them. They wouldn't know where to start. Heck, try explaining steel or aluminium to them. I'm not saying they couldn't, but they'd need years and years and years of education. We require that now, to get to college level intelligence and knowledge. And that's growing up in a world where water runs from a tap or we see cars every day as kids so we don't really question it. You start using Transporters or Replicators or Phasers and trying to explain Hisenburg's Uncertainty Principle or warping space ... blank looks. They didn't know what atoms were, let alone nadions, antimatter or warp particles.

I think it'd be a lot like that TNG episode Who Watches the Watchers or any number of SG1 episodes.

It would not be that hard to teach ancient Egyptians the basics of modern technology. You just have to start with an already-understood frame of reference. For instance, they already knew about iron and how to work with it in a limited fashion. They were masters of bronze and copper work. It would not be much of a leap to explain and demonstrate that heating iron will make it easier to forge, and that by controlling the amount of charcoal you use, you can fashion steel. Aluminum would be harder to explain since you'd need to explain electricity first (that's how you refine the stuff in the first place). But electricity would be easy-ish since they would already know about lightning.

So yes it might take years but it would be far from impossible, since every piece of modern tech we have today is based at some level in ideas they already know. Steel -> Iron -> Bronze. Electricity -> Lightning. Flight -> Aerodynamics -> Birds.

Are you for real?

Electricity is easy to explain because lightning?

How on earth does that flash in the sky and really loud bang make a lightbulb work? What's a lightbulb? Glass? Silicon? Like sand? But not the sand you have here? It has to be a vacuum on the inside? What's a vacuum? Gas? particles? atoms? positive and negative charges? charges? positive? negative? conducting? ions?

It's not that they wouldn't have the ability to understand, it's just so alien to them ... they have no frame of reference for any of it. Hell, they didn't have a concept of "zero" (as in the number).

Yeah... good luck.



I hate to go down to this level, but you're just flat out wrong if you think you could explain this to ancient egyptians.

Are you for real?

Quite.

How on earth does that flash in the sky and really loud bang make a lightbulb work?

Ask them about a lightning bolt. What does it look like? What kind of sound does it make?

Take a small tesla coil. Generate your own small lightning bolts. Allow them to observe the spark and hear the snap and explain to them that it's simply a matter of scale. Small spark, big bolt. Same thing just different size. Demonstrate how you generate it. The principles of an electric generator may be harder to explain, but you don't have to go into detail about that right now. Just show that the faster you run the magnets (which they should already understand) past the copper wire (which they already know how to make), the more zapping occurs. Then demonstrate what happens if you use a copper wire to "carry" the bolt. Show them what happens when you overheat the wire and it glows red. Then show them a lightbulb and point out it's the same thing. Tell them we just suck the air out of it to make it glow brighter.

See? That easy. You don't have to immediately explain electrons or atomic theory to demonstrate how objects work. You can compare it to things they already know and show that it's the same principle behind it. Electricity, magnets, copper wire, heat, light...they already know these things, just in different forms than modern tech. They can dive into the theory later once they know that it simply works.

It's not that they wouldn't have the ability to understand, it's just so alien to them ... they have no frame of reference for any of it.

Then we must provide one. Frame of reference is essential for any form of education.

Hell, they didn't have a concept of "zero" (as in the number).

Actually they had a zero as far back as 1700BC. Perhaps earlier. So they knew quite well the concept of zero and how to use it.

I hate to go down to this level, but you're just flat out wrong if you think you could explain this to ancient egyptians.

They were a pretty smart bunch. I sincerely do not mean this to be insulting, but they were a lot smarter than you in many ways. They understood the idea of observation and recording details. They were skilled at mathematics and engineering. If you just sit down and show things to them and compare to the natural world with which they are already familiar, they will grasp (at the very least) that whatever you're doing works. If they ask for details, then break out the science textbooks.