View Single Post
Old July 23 2012, 02:46 PM   #323
Christopher's Avatar

Admiral_Young wrote: View Post
I would assume fans think "Admiral Archer" is indeed an elder Jonathan because of the mention of the beagle. We know of Porthos. Now it obviously could have been a different beagle that Admiral Archer owned, but a beagle nonetheless.
Well, it would've had to be a different beagle, because a beagle's life expectancy is 13-15 years. If Trekverse geriatric science were advanced enough to let a dog live over 107 years, then humans would already have life expectancies in the thousands.

Second, it's not like it's unusual for pet preferences to be passed down from generation to generation. After all, children grow up with the pets their parents keep. So the beagle reinforces that it would be someone in Archer's family, yes, but not Jonathan himself, not when he would have to be 146 years old, which would break all canonically established records of natural human longevity. The probability of Jonathan Archer being the oldest human in recorded history is vanishingly low, while the probability of Jonathan Archer having descendants who followed him into Starfleet and inherited his love of beagles is extremely high. There's only one reasonable interpretation here.

Oh, and another thing: According to Archer's bio in "In a Mirror, Darkly," he retired from Starfleet in 2169 to become ambassador to Andoria, then became a Federation councillor, then the President of the UFP. Granted, that wasn't stated in dialogue so it isn't strictly canonical, but if you accept it, then nobody is going to refer to a former president as "Admiral Archer" instead of "President Archer." So it would have to be someone else.

Plus in The Next Generation we saw an incredibly aged Leonard McCoy and it has been established that life expectancy in Star Trek is somewhat extended than what we have currently.
We saw a McCoy who was nine years younger than Archer would've had to be, and he was portrayed as exceptionally ancient. And that was with the benefit of geriatric science more than a century beyond what Archer would've had available. By analogy, it would be far more reasonable to postulate a character from a present-day series living to age 100 than it would be for a character from a Western.

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote:
The problem with making long distance transporting routine in the Star Trek universe is that it renders the entire format of Star Trek obsolete. If you have interstellar beaming, what do you need starships for?
Stargate always found need for starships, despite having instant and safe travel to many thousands of worlds throughout the galaxy (and beyond)
But Stargates were limited by needing a receiving station.

Also, a transporter is pretty useless when you want to go star charting, or investigate some space phenomena or other.
You could beam probes there. The reason for sending live explorers out in ships is because you need sentient beings on the scene in case something goes wrong, and then you need large crews to support the social and psychological requirements of those beings on long journeys. With interstellar transporters, you could just send probes everywhere, and just beam experts to the scene if there were a particular need for it.
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote