• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Medical Treknology and human aging.

BlastHardcheese

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
We've all heard of the impressive Vulcan lifespan of 200+ years, and Ferengi like Zek can live at least 140 themselves. Hell even a Klingon warrior can last to 150 if they survive as many battles as Kor did. So what about humans?

I think humans must live to at least 150 by the time of the TNG universe if not longer. There are many real world theories of aging thrown around, like DNA determining a set time limit for the human body, to the build up of toxins in the organs and cells which cause them to break down and so forth. But there have also been many advancements in the last 500 years that have seen the human lifespan double.

In ancient Egypt, one was considered to be ready for the grave at 30. In Medieval times, getting to 60 showed you had a very respectable constitution - most English monarchs never reached it. Queen Elizabeth the 1st reached the champion age of 70 at the time of her death. Now the world's oldest people live beyond 120 years, though most of us should get to 90 or so if we stay healthy and out of trouble. Our own science has taken an animal with a lifespan little better than a housecat and extended it 3-4 times what it once was.

But in the 24th century, nobody gets sick very much anymore unless they leave earth to colonize other worlds or join starfleet and then run the risk of being exposed to exotic diseases that federation science can't treat. Even headaches are said to be rare. So human medicine is at its peak and still constantly improving in terms of keeping people healthy and free of disease and injury. Even transporter bio-filters cleanse the human body of any dangerous germs or toxins that might have built up.

We could assume the human diet is now satisfied by the healthiest foods with the highest nutritional value and least unecessary fat, salt and other undesirable elements.

Leonard McCoy is the best example I can think of for human longevity in trek. Even at 137 he was up and walking, cantankerous as ever (What's so troubling about not having died?). But even so, I think it's possible that since he was born in the early 23rd century, McCoy may not have benefited from the level of technology in medicine and lifestyle that the TNG characters have enjoyed all their lives and that he may have been much more decrepit than they will all be in advanced age.

So my point is I think humans may live as long as Vulcans in the TNG era, and maybe both races can live longer than 200+. Spock still looked pretty solid for a man approaching Sarek's TNG age. We have no real canon evidence to disprove the notion so it's all academic.. but I'd like to see what other opinions are on the idea.

And if real life technology can proceed at such a quick pace that it becomes comparable to sci-fi technology in some distant fictional future, I think we'll eventually have Vulcan lifespans too.
 
A random factoid to support the idea of long-lived humans: in DS9 "To the Death", Chief O'Brien says he wants to die in his bed, surrounded by loved ones, at age 140.

Now this sort of phrase is commonly uttered in our time as well - and the "age x" reflects the current state of art in prolonging one's lifespan. Today, it probably wouldn't make sense to say "age 80", because the desire only becomes optimistic enough if it's an age not commonly achieved. "Age 95" might just cut it today, even though people have been known to exceed 120 already.

If O'Brien's "age 140" was similarly optimistic but not statistically unrealistic, then some individuals might perhaps reach the age of 165. If the phrase was used in the optimistic and unrealistic sense, then 140 still should be attainable but might be close to the theoretical max. It would be odd if 140 was a pessimistic wish, though, so no doubt some people do live longer than that but not by much, and most don't reach 140.

It is a theoretical possibility, though, that O'Brien wanted to die in his prime, and hated the prospect of living to 230 like his great-grand-aunt, at the cost of failing bodily and mental health...

Timo Saloniemi
 
It is a theoretical possibility, though, that O'Brien wanted to die in his prime, and hated the prospect of living to 230 like his great-grand-aunt, at the cost of failing bodily and mental health...

Timo Saloniemi

Is there a canon reference to O'brien's great aunt reaching 230??

Edit: Ahh, you were giving an example of how 140 would still be in one's prime compared to 230.
 
Considering that the Federation shuns genetic engineering, humans really are not reaching Vulcan lifespans. Nor is there any canon evidence of that. I suspect at TNG era most people will reach hundred, while some will live even as long as 140.

BTW, Patrick Stewart was only in his fifties at the start of TNG, while Picard was in his sixties. Maybe this is a reflection of advanced medical technology, making physically Picard appear ten years younger than he actually was.
 
It's not really well established that the Federation shuns genetical engineering. Episodes like "Dr Bashir, I Presume" show that the UFP frowns on the wanton production of further Khans, but episodes like "Unnatural Selection" establish that the emphasis is on "wanton": the government can still dabble in supermen under controlled conditions.

UFP citizens can no doubt get extensive gene therapies, including really weird all-genome swapouts such as in "Identity Crisis". And while it is obviously bad form to want a child who is physically or mentally markedly superior to others, this need not mean that there couldn't be a gradual process of increasing people's health, resistance to diseases, and lifespan, through what could be considered gentle eugenics. Nobody need be aborted pre- or postnatally, or prevented from breeding; instead, gene therapies on disadvantages individuals may allow them to "reach parity" and then breed, hiking up the average.

The idea of Picard being older than Stewart was IMHO a very good one, even if it may not have been the creators' original intent. Perhaps all the other graying folks are older than they seem, too? The younger people don't seem to display this sort of disparity yet, though; apparently it only manifests past fifty or something.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Longinus,

BTW, Patrick Stewart was only in his fifties at the start of TNG, while Picard was in his sixties. Maybe this is a reflection of advanced medical technology, making physically Picard appear ten years younger than he actually was.

Actually Patrick Stewart was 47 at the beginning of TNG, while Captain Picard was 59.

Truthfully, I think Picard's listed age was more the fact of Patrick Stewart looking a lot older than he really was. Granted a good wig would have helped to an extent...


BlastHardcheese,

I acknowledged that in the original post.

Sorry, I forgot.


CuttingEdge100
 
I've never understood why people die at all in the Federation, at least outside of phaser vaporizations and such. Given their capabilities in cloning and replication, people shouldn't even really age.

The only explanation I can think of is that they haven't mastered how to repair the brain or reverse its aging without destroying data, and since eventually you'll wind up a vegetable around 150, why go to the trouble of staying fit or keeping your hair?
 
Ah, but do we have any examples of 24th century people dying when they don't want to?

I mean, there are a few exotic diseases that have made life hell for certain people, like Mark Jameison and later perhaps Jean-Luc Picard. But those diseases haven't killed them, or Joe Sisko. OTOH, they aren't worth a complete "reset treatment" where the diseased individual would be replaced by some sort of a clone of an earlier, healthy one.

Perhaps people just don't want to live for more than a century - perhaps they accept natural/accidental death when it comes? Not out of immediate practical necessity, but because their cultural-religious views favor a natural death rather than an artificially postponed one? Perhaps dying to make room for others is a tenet of a future eco-faith?

Crusher in "The Neutral Zone" claims that future people no longer fear death. Everything goes to show that they still fear approaching death just fine, for the final few hours or minutes or seconds, and mourn it when it happens to others. But Crusher could be literally right in claiming that nobody (that is, less than a thousands of a percent) wants to live forever - thereby making absurd the sort of thing she's faced with, the cryogenic preservation of dead bodies.

Timo Saloniemi
 
That bit in the Neutral Zone should probably be relegated to the same category as the Federation seal on the bridge of a Klingon ship, though--TNG season 1 weirdness. :p

Indeed, taken completely at face value, it's probably the most unbelievable thing ever uttered in Star Trek. I'd be willing to countenance the existence of nadions before I credited the notion that people wouldn't want centuries of life if it were available. Especially the sweet-ass life of nearly godlike goof-offery that the Federation offers. It's just totally alien to human nature--the same human nature that TNG, particularly S1 TNG, wanted to distance itself from because of Roddenberry's belief that the future was totally zen.

And yet, the nihilism inherent in the statement is in complete contradiction with the spirit of Star Trek, which boiled down to its essence, is that the future is beautiful and there's always something new to excite us beyond tomorrow. In a world where exploration is a permanent condition and a never-ending adventure, where discovery is a way of life, why wouldn't the people in that world want to live in it as long as possible? Crusher should've been congratulating the cryogenic rubes for having the guts to explore a whole new, totally alien world, not chastizing them for not laying down and dying like the 24th century human apparently would.:wtf:

Sorry if this got a little ranty, but I really hated the behavior of the Enterprise crew in the Neutral Zone. What a bunch of jerks.
 
Well, at least S1 dared try science fiction every now and then. The rest of TNG tended to be soap in a corridor set, alas. (And not even of the corridors-self-clean-themselves sort of soap... Now that was an intriguing idea, too.)

The future in Trek is different, and our heroes love to look down on people who behave like people. Perhaps this non-fear of dying / fear of long life is more a cause than an effect of the utopia, one of those odd shifts of psyche that have allowed Earth (and a lot of the rest of the UFP?) to become a socialist paradise where ambition does not blind people to the benefits of equality.

Remember that big war either between or against supermen? Earthlings of the 21st through 24th centuries may have a greater reason to fear longevity than death. Death is a great equalizer; longevity in turn tends to fall on those whom the remaining population most wants dead.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I liked S1 more than most, really. "Conspiracy" is still in my TNG top five. And I did like the "no money in the future" thing that started (afaik) in "The Neutral Zone." I just wish they'd thought it through better, more intensely than "it sounds nice."

But then, maybe that's why no one can afford immortality. :p

But if they don't fear death, why did they go to the trouble of getting Picard an iron heart and then fixing it when it broke? How different is that from cryogenic suspension? Both extend the lifespan beyond its natural limits using highly artificial means.

And anyway, do the 24th century ready-to-die-soon humans look down on the Vulcans, who live 200-300 years? Or that guy Flint, who lived several millennia? Or the poor Horta, who live a whopping 50,000 years and probably only get to have sex for a few of them?

Is the ideal being, by the "Neutral Zone" standard, in fact an Ocampa? If so, I even more emphatically oppose it.:lol:
 
I would note that Sisko's dad was on his 2nd or 3rd aorta replacement in his early appearances in DS9. People still get sick, etc, they just have better treatements.
 
My plan is to live off investment income and the automated economy by that point anyway.:bolian:

You would still need to earn the money in the first place, seriously you would have to go to work, every day, forever.

There is no way any system could work with people working for fifty years and then living free for a million.

Also of course the world would be obscenely overpopulated within decades of the invention of immortality, and we would all die out anyhow.
 
My plan is to live off investment income and the automated economy by that point anyway.:bolian:

You would still need to earn the money in the first place, seriously you would have to go to work, every day, forever.

There is no way any system could work with people working for fifty years and then living free for a million.

Also of course the world would be obscenely overpopulated within decades of the invention of immortality, and we would all die out anyhow.
The problem of forever-work is solved by robotics and is ultimately independent of life-extending technologies.

Even if it didn't, I intend to make and invest enough money to be able to live off of interest and dividends and such when I'm 50 or 60+, so I don't see why that isn't doable for a longer term than 30 or 40 years.

Overpopulation is a real problem, but there are ways around that, as well.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top