PapaPetro

I added my own caviate to the Prime Directive in that previous thread " foster and guide that unique growth toward an positive outcome for all parties". A humanitarian approach but not a deterministic one. Think of it as a synthesis between Picard and Kirk.

I've simply become incredibly wary of anything or anyone who proposes a positive outcome "for all". I believe such things are impossible and such ideations end up detrimental in actual practice. Better to focus on things one can control.

Is it idealistic sure. But it's worth thinking in such manner rather than being resigned to the alternative of exploitative outcomes.

For example I immediately found your assumption that a McDonald's-free village is inherently "cleaner" than one with it to be antithetical to my own world-view; I do not view McDonald's and the like as something good, but nor do I view it as bad, it is simply an aspect of infrastructure; it has no moral connotations and therefore no necessity for built-in counter forces.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that you're saying that there is essentially no choice for the village to make, you're decrying the rail-roaded nature of the system that makes it so that progress MUST lead to something like a McDonald's; I just don't attach any moral significance to that. It is human nature to express themselves in such ways, for better or worse.

I'm fine with business if it's conducted properly and in the interest of nations/peoples.
My economic philosophy has been that Economies exist to serve the nation and her peoples, not the other way around (economic servitude/slavery). The former has a teleology, while the latter has no telos/goal outside of nihilistic acquisition.