View Single Post
Old April 17 2013, 02:46 AM   #13
t_smitts
Commander
 
Re: How long do humans typically live in the 24th Century?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
The last movie made mention of Admiral Archer - and if he's the same guy we saw as a Captain in the Enterprise TV series (as the writers intended), he would be around 140 at the time. That said, Archer was Trek's king of time travel.

It really depends who's writing. Although evidence from TNG and the novelverse indicates people can live to very old ages and remain useful and functional into their 100's (see: Elias Vaughn), the animated episode "The Counter-Clock Incident" gave officers a mandatory retirement age of 75.
Yes, and Memory Alpha pointed out that Archer would've been 145 at the time of Abrams-Trek, which I personally think it more than pushing it.

I prefer Mike Sussman's unseen footnote from "In a Mirror, Darkly" that Archer died in 2245 (at 137) a day after attending the launch of the Connie Enterprise.

R. Star wrote: View Post
Elias Vaughn is the worst kind of character to trump out as an example being the gray haired Mary Sue he is.

That said, some of the ages seem somewhat ridiculous. I guess it's possible medical technology could advance to the point of keeping a person function into their 150's... but if that's possible, why aren't we just cloning people and putting them into new bodies... this isn't unprecedented in Trek by any means.
Kind of like the Emperor did in Star Wars comics? I always thought synaptic transfer into clone bodies would be the best bet for attaining near-immortality while preserving quality of life (not transferring yourself into a computer).

There have been a couple of examples in Trek of organic-to-organic transfers ("The Passenger"), but there's no way to know how reliable it is in the Trek universe. It's also possible it may work for some species but not others.

Mojochi wrote: View Post
I'd think it could be possible that even though people live to 140-150 as it seems to be in Star Trek, it might also be possible that they would still retire between 70-80, because even though their medical tech has pushed back death, with treatments and organ replacements, there's been no evidence that their tech alters in any way the aging process of humans, meaning menopause sets in around the same time it does for us. They become geriatric at the same time we do, but their advancements have made geriatric living better and last longer
This is kind of an uncomfortable question but one wonders if a society could sustain a large number of retirees living that long, longer in fact than the number of years they can work productively.
t_smitts is offline   Reply With Quote