Are people really this fixed on things like the Bell Riots?

[Lord Garth]

If this thread can hold out, when I get to "Past Tense" in my rewatch, I'll post my take in this thread on what could've happened in the '90s version of the 2020s, using information no more current than Clinton's first two years in office to base it off of.

By the way, my mother died at 50 from cancer. If I can make it to at least that, I'll be grateful.

 

[thribs]

I feel like comic books are different Star Trek though. They have a very flexible continuity. I always thought Star Trek was more fixed and focused.

 

[Greg Cox]

Had this conversation in one of the novel threads and the authors stated that real life events should retcon anything else. Personally I don’t agree with that logic and see the Star Trek universe as a separate thing but I’m in the minority it seems.

I remember that conservation. A fun discussion, as I recall, inspired by my most recent Trek novel.

And when it comes to actually showing the present-day, in time-travel eps and such, Trek has always been pretty consistent about defaulting to whatever is actually going on outside our window when such episodes air, going all the way back "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Assignment: Earth."

The same way comic books, the Hardy Boys, et cetera, automatically default to "now" -- unless you're doing a deliberately nostalgic period piece like "Doc Savage" or "The Green Hornet."

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Oh, there most certainly is! Genetics is the overriding factor.

Even amongst those with the healthiest lifestyles, almost none live to 100, whereas centenarians and supercentenarians are frequently found to have poor health habits including smoking, drinking, and diets high in salt, sugar, and fat. For instance, Richard Overton lived to 112 despite whiskey, cigars, and full butterfat ice cream every day, and Jeanne Calment was a light daily smoker for 97 of her 122 years (she also frequently drank port wine and had a typical French high-fat diet). Also, Ernst Jünger was wounded fourteen times in the First World War, including nearly fatally, but lived to 102.

You've covered age and diet, but not anything else. We can't just assume it's genetics. They didn't get become fatally ill; they weren't fatally injured, best way to reach 100+.

Out of eight billion people, only around three quarters of a million are centenarians according to research by the United Nations, a rarity of about one in eleven thousand. By 2100, the UN projects twenty-five million centenarians out of ten billion people, a rarity of about one in four hundred (this assumes no longevity therapies are developed by then). We should thus expect only around fifteen thousand supercentenarians by then.

Based on the survival rate of centenarians to 110, the Gerontology Research Group estimates there are only, at most, 450 living supercentenarians worldwide; meaning there's one supercentenarian for every eighteen million people.

Also, the odds are far worse for men than for women. Only fifteen percent of centenarians are male, and that may drop to ten percent for supercentenarians. (Even after correcting for males' increased exposure to violence, danger, and bad diets, women still have a significant physiological advantage.)

Only seventy-five people (including just three men) have verifiably lived to 115, and Jeanne Calment remains the only person verified to have reached 120.

People aren't statistics. What is the medical science to back this? If people eat health, stay active, maintain a healthy environment (place & people), dodge fatal illness, dodge fatal injury, don't do drugs, drink light or don't drink, can you give me a genetic or medical reason why this person cannot reach 120?

Had this conversation in one of the novel threads and the authors stated that real life events should retcon anything else. Personally I don’t agree with that logic and see the Star Trek universe as a separate thing but I’m in the minority it seems.

Star Trek isn't real, it doesn't have to perfectly match the real world. Let it be a 1960's vision of the future with its own history.

Honestly, that's how comic books have worked for generations now.

Thankfully, Star Trek is not rebooting over and over and over. We can move forward with spin-offs instead of 10 remakes of TOS.

As I like to joke, there's a reason Lois Lane doesn't wear pillbox hat anymore, and why Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys have cell phones these days.

Remakes.

Any long-running fictional property needs to get a facelift occasionally.

Agreed.

 

[Cryogenator]

Honestly, that's how comic books have worked for generations now.

As I like to joke, there's a reason Lois Lane doesn't wear pillbox hat anymore, and why Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys have cell phones these days.

Yes, but each reboot represents a parallel universe in the Marvel, DC, and Stratemeyer multiverses, and those stories are set mostly in the present.

The late twentieth and early twenty-first century prehistory of the Federation has been rewritten with time travel so as to make it more closely resemble our universe’s recent Earth history, but rewriting the impending Third World War will require far more significant changes, and by the time of the mid twenty-second century, episodes will be overwritten.

So, the options then will be to continue the existing continuity as a parallel universe, create a new continuity with familiar characters and events appearing centuries later (Archer in the 23rd century, Kirk in the 24th, Picard in the 25th…), or create a new continuity with new characters and events within an updated version of the general aesthetic and ethos.

 

[Cryogenator]

You've covered age and diet, but not anything else.

I’ve covered everything.

We can't just assume it's genetics.

We don’t just assume. We know. (By “we,” I mean the people who know what they’re talking about, which is not a group which includes you nor likely ever will.)

People aren't statistics.

You are astoundingly ignorant. Statistics about people are simply descriptions of how often things happen to people.

What is the medical science to back this? If people eat health, stay active, maintain a healthy environment (place & people), dodge fatal illness, dodge fatal injury, don't do drugs, drink light or don't drink, can you give me a genetic or medical reason why this person cannot reach 120?

I already did in my previous post which includes many links from which you can learn.

Once again, even amongst the people with the healthiest lifestyles, living to 100 is still extremely rare and living to 110 is virtually nonexistent, whereas centenarians and supercentenarians are frequently found to have somewhat or even significantly unhealthy lifestyles. Despite this, they tend to be in better shape than octogenarians and nonagenarians with healthier lifestyles.

Improvements in lifestyle and conventional healthcare will enable more people to live to 100, but even then, the United Nations projects only twenty-five million centenarians (and thus fifteen thousand supercentenarians) out of ten billion people in 2100.

If genetics wasn’t the primary determinant and very clean lifestyles (healthy diet, significant exercise, low stress, and low exposure to pollution) alone could bring people to 120, we’d have far more than one verified example by now.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

We don’t just assume. We know. (By “we,” I mean the people who know what they’re talking about, which is not a group which includes you or likely every will.)

I do not trust a scientist who lacks the ability to translate things into plain English.

You are astoundingly ignorant. Statistics about people are simply descriptions of how often things happen to people.

I'm not ignorant, I just don't care.

Once again, even amongst the people with the healthiest lifestyles, living to 100 is still extremely rare and living to 110 is virtually nonexistent

Why? What's the data? Take me for example. I am in my 40's. What's going to stop me from seeing my 100th birthday and reaching my 110's?

whereas centenarians and supercentenarians are frequently found to have somewhat or even significantly unhealthy lifestyles.

Centenarians, meaning people who live to be 100+? It's more complicated than diet.

Despite this, they tend to be in better shape than octogenarians and nonagenarians with healthier lifestyles.

Speak English. 80's? 90's?

Improvements in lifestyle and conventional healthcare will enable more people to live to 100

I won't argue with this.

the United Nations projects only twenty-five million centenarians (and thus fifteen thousand supercentenarians) out of ten billion people in 2100.

Why? I don't care what the UN says. Who?

If genetics wasn’t the primary determinant and very clean lifestyles and diets alone could bring people to 120, we’d have far more than one verified example by now.

I never said "clean" lifestyle & diet alone. Let's list.
#1 If someone eats a healthy diet, which is individualistic and not universal...
#2 If someone practices physical, mental, spiritual good health...
#3 If someone practices a healthy environment, meaning place and people...
#4 If someone dodges fatal illness...
#5 If someone dodges fatal injury...
Why would this person not live to be 100+?
Can you provide a simple, direct, concise answer?

 

[Avro Arrow]

And when it comes to actually showing the present-day, in time-travel eps and such, Trek has always been pretty consistent about defaulting to whatever is actually going on outside our window when such episodes air, going all the way back "Tomorrow is Yesterday" and "Assignment: Earth."

I kind of question this a little (sorry), because "Assignment: Earth" strikes me more as the counter-example to what you're saying. The story in that episode had the United States launching an orbital nuclear weapons platform to counter the prior launch of Soviet nuclear weapons platforms. Even though the "past" part of the episode was set in the present day of the audience, nothing like that was actually happening at the time. So I tend to read that episode as more of the first example of the creators deliberately separating our history from Star Trek history.

Other examples include Picard season 2 (spaceflight is much further along than in our reality) and "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" (no massive bridge spanning Lake Ontario, nor one planned, in our reality).

 

[Greg Cox]

I think, to some degree, that it's often more important to stick to the spirit of the original stories than worry too much about making it all fit together seamlessly. So, the Klingons are always ferocious-looking, the Eugenics Wars always take place in the near future, and "today" always looks like today, and, eventually, World War III will take place sometime further down the road, while the stories themselves basically remain the same, allowing for a certain degree of artistic license.

Which is how movie and tv series alway worked, at least back in the day.

At it happens, I recently watched SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939) from the umpteenth mind. SON is the third of the original Boris Karloff movies and the direct sequel to BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Is it 100% consistent with previous two films regarding matters of art direction? Not at all. Does it retcon some details from the previous films? Absolutely.

Does it matter? Not really. And certainly I've never seen anyone argue that SON is not "canon" or set in a different "timeline" or a "reboot." SON is the third film in the Universal FRANKENSTEIN series, period.

At the risk of showing my age, I like to think there's something to said for not being too much of stickler about such things. We're talking theater after all.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

There is, however, a planned hovercraft between Toronto and St. Catharine's.

Hovercraft service will take passengers between Toronto and St. Catharines in 30 minutes

New agreement propels project for 30-minute trips between GTA and Niagara region starting in late 2025 or early 2026.

nationalpost.com

Where Trek differentiated in the past from then-current events in the main timeline was in showing secret things that could have been happening under the public radar (TIY), or ordinary events that weren't public knowledge anyway (Edith Keeler existing), not writing alternate visible present day events that would have been public knowledge.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I kind of question this a little (sorry), because "Assignment: Earth" strikes me more as the counter-example to what you're saying. The story in that episode had the United States launching an orbital nuclear weapons platform to counter the prior launch of Soviet nuclear weapons platforms. Even though the "past" part of the episode was set in the present day of the audience, nothing like that was actually happening at the time. So I tend to read that episode as more of the first example of the creators deliberately separating our history from Star Trek history.

Well they were creating an action-adventure show. So some liberties will be taken. I don't think those involved were deliberately separating our history from Star Trek history. I don't feel they, as creatives, think along those lines. It was written and rewritten between 1965 and Jan1968. The year was chosen to correspond with the year it would be broadcast. They were projecting possible developments in the near future as SF writers are wont to do.

 

[Greg Cox]

I kind of question this a little (sorry), because "Assignment: Earth" strikes me more as the counter-example to what you're saying. The story in that episode had the United States launching an orbital nuclear weapons platform to counter the prior launch of Soviet nuclear weapons platforms. Even though the "past" part of the episode was set in the present day of the audience, nothing like that was actually happening at the time. So I tend to read that episode as more of the first example of the creators deliberately separating our history from Star Trek history.

I just took that as being typical of the way old-school spy-fi shows often dialed up the technology for dramatic effect. Were THE AVENGERS or THE MAN FROM UNCLE or THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN set in alternate timelines just because they might feature imaginary space missions or insane computers or cybernauts? Were the early Bond films set in an alternate timeline just because SPECTRE was occasionally sabotaging fictitious NASA missions, or launching their own rockets and death-ray satellites from hollowed-out volcanos?

I don't think that was the intent. Aside from the cool sci-fi gimmicks, the present-day of such shows was meant to be the present-day of the audience. The cars, the clothes, the city streets and sidewalks, were all meant to represent the real world of the time, not some alternate timeline. Same with "Assignment: Earth," which was very much intended to launch a TV series along those same lines.

In that context, Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln (and Isis) dealing with a fictitious orbital weapons platform in 1968 is no different than James Bond saving an imaginary NASA space mission in 1967, or Our Man Flint disabling a weather-control satellite in 1966.

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

Things are always exaggerated in the movies. It's why they are fun.

 

[Cryogenator]

I do not trust a scientist who lacks the ability to translate things into plain English.

It’s all in plain English.

I'm not ignorant, I just don't care.

You are certainly ignorant and you certainly care.

I am in my 40's.

Wow. I seriously thought you were a teenager (and not one of the brighter ones) or in your early twenties at most. I’m embarrassed for you.

What's going to stop me from seeing my 100th birthday and reaching my 110's?

As I’ve repeatedly explained, without significant medical advances, your genetics (and gender) almost certainly will.

Centenarians, meaning people who live to be 100+? It's more complicated than diet.

Speak English. 80's? 90's?

Octogenarians and nonagenarians, as I said. These are English words. If you had an elementary understanding of Greek and Latin roots, you’d’ve instantly understood their meanings, and even if not, you could’ve used context clues. Failing that, search engines are instantly available.

Although “denarian,” “vicenarian,” “tricenarian,” “quadragenarian,” and “quinqagenarian” are rarely used even in science, “sexagenarian,” “septuagenarian,” “octogenarian,” “nonagenarian,” “centenarian,” and “supercentenarian” are widely used by the educated public, not just in science. (I propose “unarian” for those below ten and “ultracentenarian” for those above 119.)

I won't argue with this.

Hallelujah.

Why? I don't care what the UN says.

And I don’t care what you say. The difference is that the United Nations has conducted some of the most extensive and rigorous demographic analyses and the Gerontology Research Group has conducted some of the most extensive analyses of centenarians and supercentenarians whereas you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, as usual.

I never said "clean" lifestyle & diet alone. Let's list.
#1 If someone eats a healthy diet, which is individualistic and not universal...
#2 If someone practices physical, mental, spiritual good health...
#3 If someone practices a healthy environment, meaning place and people...
#4 If someone dodges fatal illness...
#5 If someone dodges fatal injury...
Why would this person not live to be 100+?
Can you provide a simple, direct, concise answer?

Yeah, I addressed all of that with a concise answer: extensive analysis of human lifespans conclusively shows that even the healthiest people (even people meeting all of the criteria you mention) very rarely live to 100 and almost never to 110. Also, centenarians and supercentenarians are frequently found to have bad diets, sedentary lifestyles, stressful histories, and to use alcohol and tobacco. Furthermore, if meeting those criteria enabled people with normal genetics to live to 120, we would have far more than one verified example of someone reaching that age. There is absolutely no doubt that a rare few people have superior genetic longevity potential.

 

[cooleddie74]

The real Bell Riots are the ones we sparked along the way.*


*Dave Barry, I'm guessing around 1999, or maybe it was me just now

 

[Admiral Jean-Luc Picard]

You are certainly ignorant and you certainly care.

Wow. I seriously thought you were a teenager (and not one of the brighter ones)

This is where I stopped reading.

 

[Cryogenator]

This is where I stopped reading.

I don’t think you really read this forum so much as bloviate on it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well they were creating an action-adventure show. So some liberties will be taken. I don't think those involved were deliberately separating our history from Star Trek history. I don't feel they, as creatives, think along those lines. It was written and rewritten between 1965 and Jan1968. The year was chosen to correspond with the year it would be broadcast. They were projecting possible developments in the near future as SF writers are wont to do.

Exactly. I can't imagine anybody making that episode back in the sixties was thinking in terms of setting up some sort of divergent timeline for Trek. They were just coming up with an exciting spy-fi mission for Gary Seven and Roberta.

 

[Cryogenator]

I think, to some degree, that it's often more important to stick to the spirit of the original stories than worry too much about making it all fit together seamlessly. So, the Klingons are always ferocious-looking, the Eugenics Wars always take place in the near future, and "today" always looks like today, and, eventually, World War III will take place sometime further down the road, while the stories themselves basically remain the same, allowing for a certain degree of artistic license.

There’s only so far that can go, though.

If we reach a point at which we’ve colonized the Solar System, have enhanced ourselves far beyond the Augments, have nanotechnology and artificial intelligence far more advanced and ubiquitous than the Federation’s, and have indefinite lifespans, how might we then reset Star Trek?

I suppose Discovery took a very small step in that direction with 32nd century technology.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There’s only so far that can go, though.

If we reach a point at which we’ve colonized the Solar System, have enhanced ourselves far beyond the Augments, have nanotechnology and artificial intelligence far more advanced and ubiquitous than the Federation’s, and have indefinite lifespans, how might we then reset Star Trek?

I suppose Discovery took a very small step in that direction with 32nd century technology.

Fiction will find away.