I was thinking about this quote:
As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred,....
This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.
But why is it sacred, and why does this--and not another perspective--have to be the highest moral obligation? Based on what authority, in other words?
These are values that the folks on the enterprise agreed to when they joined up. Problem is, that time and experience usually bring people to a place where they have to affirm or deny their original 'directive'. This directive is either very true and will be kept, or it will be modified.
Anyway... your original question about "Should we really try to change others?" means that 1) there is such a thing as bad/good, or even simply good/better/best, and 2) whether we have a moral obligation ("Am I my brother's keeper?") toward helping others. (How we might help can also be sorted into good/better/best ways, perhaps?)
You know, I think this is why I'm not upset when most people try to change me/convert me, because I start with the assumption that their motives are altruistic. Of course, there are enough folks who are mostly concerned with their own 'eternal self-preservation' and who try to change/convert others (sometimes by force) to prove they are worthy of living. (Certain JWs and Muslim jihadists come to mind.) That is selfishness at its core, and hardly a change for better for society in the long run.
IMO of course.
bebu