Shouldn't Trek tech make aging obsolete?

[polyharmonic]

In Trek, I have noticed that people are still aging and dying (of old age).

But this got me thinking, wouldn't the really advance tech make it so that you would not only never age beyond a certain point, you would just be immortal.

For instance, couldn't you just program the transporters and replicators to just "un-age" your body every so often?

Another thing that I could see (especially someday IRL), is mind transference into android bodies that can be refurbished indefinitely.

It just seems like with the tech available in Trek, especially TNG time period, tech would have made people immortal.

 

[The Wormhole]

Likely "Gene's Vision" means humanity has accepted aging and death as a necessary part of the human experience and an enlightened society would accept this without question. Indeed, Roddenberry had some weird ideas about how death would be viewed in the 24th century, just look at The Bonding where everyone talks down to that kid about how he shouldn't mourn the loss of his mother they day after it happened. Even though it was perfectly okay for them to mourn Tasha's death.

Another thing that I could see (especially someday IRL), is mind transference into android bodies that can be refurbished indefinitely.

Mind transference is a sham, IMO. The subjective experience is still terminal. So the consciousness gets copied and placed into another body, android or otherwise. The original still exists in the original body, and the person still has to eventually experience death, there's just another copy of them that lives on and prevents the loved ones from having to mourn the person's loss.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Mind transference is a sham, IMO. The subjective experience is still terminal. So the consciousness gets copied and placed into another body, android or otherwise. The original still exists in the original body, and the person still has to eventually experience death, there's just another copy of them that lives on and prevents the loved ones from having to mourn the person's loss.

Yep. The only way I can see transferring consciousness working would be to augment the existing consciousness using a substrate that supports this and then delete the original physical component. I think this is what Arthur C Clarke intended had happened to David Bowman in the 2001 sequels.

 

[φ of π]

Transporters can already de-age you back into children while keeping your memories intact. It was in an episode of TNG and never mentioned again.

And they still think that faster-than-light travel is what ushers in a new age of Human civilization...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Transporters can de-age you and cure all illness (TNG: "Unnatural Selection"), they can also been you insane distances (112 light years+) with a minor software mod (subspace/transwarp beaming from TNG "Bloodlines" and ST'09/ID), beam you to other universes with a minor software mod (DS9: "Shattered Mirror"), create exact duplicates, sometimes evil (TOS: "The Enemy Within", TNG: "Second Chances") and the whole thing can be miniaturized to the size of a backpack (Into Darkness) or even a commbadge (Nemesis)

I'd love to see Trek embrace all of this and show humanity using technology to become almost Q-like.

 

[Timo]

Transporters can already de-age you back into children while keeping your memories intact. It was in an episode of TNG and never mentioned again.

It's vice versa, actually: one TNG and one TAS episode showed that the transporter can undo rejuvenation, essentially restoring the person to the state he or she held when last transported. So people changed back to kids by a strange spatiotemporal anomaly get old and wrinkled again at the push of a button. Not the other way around.

In order to restore somebody to youth, the transporter would have to have very recently processed the person in his or her youth, such as in "Unnatural Selection". So it only helps young people stay young, or middle-aged stay middle-aged, or old stay old.

Even this is quite radical and should have universe-toppling consequences, quite regardless of whether the transporter-restoration trick also erases all memories (and it can be argued that it does exactly that - the victims in the above three episodes spend very little time "at abnormal age" and could be brought up to speed on the events after total amnesia as soon as the camera looks away).

On the other hand, who wants to live forever? Well, everybody - but the governments might see the big problem with that. And not because some eggheads tell them what is likely to happen. It would suffice for the governments to look out of the window, at the Vulcan or Klingon Embassy grounds. Those people appear to live for several centuries, and no doubt as the direct result they are extremely violent and competitive, destroying worlds in fits of insane anger. Or then become übermonks in order not to do that. An early death seems vastly preferable...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Nyotarules]

Humans can live way past 140 odd re McCoy in TNG Encounter at Farpoint and even the novelverse has Chekov and Uhura still alive and working as Starfleet Admirals in the 2360's, they are as active and alert and as a human in their 50's/60's in the 21st century.

 

[Timo]

We don't know if McCoy was likely to live a longer or shorter life than the average human - among the rigors of his space travels, he got physically aged and then de-aged twice in the 2260s, which may have taken decades off him in either sense of the expression.

We get a more objective statement from O'Brien when he expresses the wish to die "in his bed, surrounded by loved ones, at 140". He isn't being suicidally depressed there, so 140 should be a high estimate for a good life for somebody born in the early 24th century.

But is it the same as if somebody today said he wanted to die at ninety (an attainable goal, and perhaps steering clear of the troubles of truly advanced age)? Or as if somebody said he wanted to die at hundred and twenty (a true record, only attainable by sheer chance, with most attempts ending in great suffering before failure)? We don't know everything about the 24th century attitudes towards life, age and death. But all the E-D folks seem to readily agree on the rather outlandish claims being made by some of them during the first season. Perhaps O'Brien is happy to die at 140 while his grandmother lived to 199 and made life hell for herself and the offspring towards the end?

Aging in Trek is portrayed in classic Hollywood manner, with the very young aging rapidly to their teens and then holding, with the middle-aged pretending they look as if in their twenties but failing, and with the 70-80-somethings portrayed by people who look more like 50-60 because, well, they are. Yet perhaps in this particular context, this is the factual medical truth, and future lifestyles and therapies do result in rapid early aging and a minimally delayed onset of a very long and happy old age?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[at Quark's]

Star trek is still largely based on how people in the 60's imagined the future. Basically it's just 'us, but with better stuff we can still oversee the implications of'. This implies that certain kinds of technological advances that would have a 'too radical' impact on society are actually eschewed.

Immortality (or 'too advanced medicine').? Overpopulated planet. Computer-aided or genetical enhancement of humans, up to the point of group consciousness? Augments/mutants and Borg (and yes, the Bynars too). Too much power in general? Whimsical god-like beings.

And of course the dangers depicted by Trek in that kind of technological scenario's are plausible, but it isn't a foregone conclusion that these 'radical' techs should lead to such negative outcomes.

 

[1001001]

Time is the fire in which we burn.

It is a truth of our existence.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Ageing is an immensely complex problem, so I would think that Federation scientists would start by thoroughly and completely eradicating disease, genetic deformities, and other "low-hanging" fruit before working on the elimination of ageing.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Or baldness, or being fat...

 

[Qonundrum]

Transporters can already de-age you back into children while keeping your memories intact. It was in an episode of TNG and never mentioned again.

And they still think that faster-than-light travel is what ushers in a new age of Human civilization...

Transwarp (ST3:TSFS) was forgotten as well. Trek comes up with lots of technology-based maguffins and then forgets about them all, or re-uses the same words decades later with completely different meanings. It's all good.

 

[Sophie74656]

Or baldness, or being fat...

Were there fat peopl? A few actors were what I would consider chunky but I can't recall seeing anyone who was actually fat.

 

[2takesfrakes]

The STAR TREK Universe, as in Real Life, anything past 35 is just Bonus Years.

Science is about extending the Golden Years of its Galactic Citizenry (should be called the Rust Years, actually). You can live well into your hundreds, but like Bones in his cameo in "Encounter at Farpoint," it's merely an extension of decrepitude that goes on and on. The elderly continue to either balloon out, or become emaciated. Viagra and KY are still part and parcel of The Aging Process. One might've assumed that extending youthfulness, or youth, itself, would've been the focus, but we can see it isn't so. I don't know how I'd feel about another quarter century of decrepitude. As Bones said, when his ancient father was laying in a biobed in his Sybok-induced hallucination:

"... You call this 'alive'???"

Old Age is the time for living dangerously. Start smoking ... take up Sky Diving ... get those last thrills in, whilst you can!

 

[Sophie74656]

The STAR TREK Universe, as in Real Life, anything past 35 is just Bonus Years.

Science is about extending the Golden Years of its Galactic Citizenry (should be called the Rust Years, actually). You can live well into your hundreds, but like Bones in his cameo in "Encounter at Farpoint," it's merely an extension of decrepitude that goes on and on. The elderly continue to either balloon out, or become emaciated. Viagra and KY are still part and parcel of The Aging Process. One might've assumed that extending youthfulness, or youth, itself, would've been the focus, but we can see it isn't so. I don't know how I'd feel about another quarter century of decrepitude. As Bones said, when his ancient father was laying in a biobed in his Sybok-induced hallucination:

"... You call this 'alive'???"

Old Age is the time for living dangerously. Start smoking ... take up Sky Diving ... get those last thrills in, whilst you can!

Totally agree after watching some of my relatives suffer durring their last years of life. Your 20s should be extended, not your 80s

 

[2takesfrakes]

There you go! That's it, Sophie! You got it ...

 

[Jedi_Master]

Were there fat peopl? A few actors were what I would consider chunky but I can't recall seeing anyone who was actually fat.

I have always wondered the same thing. Scotty was noticably overweight in the last few TOS films...but in general everyone is fit and trim. I would guess the justification is that as members of Starfleet, they are required to stay in shape.

 

[Voth commando1]

I'd say life spans and life expectancies have increased by as much as double what they are today.

Perhaps the remaining cultural fear of genetic engineering is what keeps the Federation from doing away with aging all together?

 

[JRTStarlight]

Mind transference is a sham, IMO. The subjective experience is still terminal. So the consciousness gets copied and placed into another body, android or otherwise. The original still exists in the original body, and the person still has to eventually experience death, there's just another copy of them that lives on and prevents the loved ones from having to mourn the person's loss.

Each transport via the transporter essentially kills the original, too, but a nigh perfect copy goes on. It's not perfect since one can read the transporter signature, apparently. So if the android body was sufficiently complex, transference of one's mind into it, even if it kills the original, wouldn't be appreciably different than that, IMO.

I think a limited lifespan is necessary to appreciate life more, or after a while you're just marking the passage of time. Of course if you keep your youth, then a much, much, longer lifespan might be more desirable, and accidental death at a young age more tragic. But if you just extend your decrepitude, and the aches and pains mount up and each day is fill with more suffering than joy, not only does one begin to not fear death, but their days may be filled with joy looking forward to it.

I sometimes wonder if Vulcans naturally live over 200 years and have done so for thousands of years, or they were just medically more advanced and living past 200 is the relatively recent product of good medicine and genetic manipulation, which would mean we, too, could live as long as Vulcans, eventually. They may have already reached their limit, baring far more drastic and artificial means. In TOS or TNG, I think we're up to around 140, baring accident, murder, or diseases, etc.

As for using transporters to age to de-age people, or restore memories, or heal injuries, or even return one to life, it is best there is a reason why that either can't be done, or the odds of successfully doing it be a low order of probability. Yes, when a lazy writer needed that to make their story work, I guess it worked - lucky them - but that doesn't mean it always has to. It might even usually end in permanent death.