General Trek Questions and Observations

The trouble wasn't that Picard wasn't fit for command but that people reacted differently to him.
Apparently 24th century humans aren't quite as evolved as they think they are.

And of course, the real reason was that the script simply needed him to be not in command.so that he could rescue the ship while the 'adults' were doing their stuff.

Similar to Chain of Command pt 2 is Best of Both Worlds pt. 2. You'd expect Picard to have massive trauma. Fortunately nothing that can't be cured with a bit of mud-wrestling and getting drunk with your brother.

 

At least "Family" suggested that Picard's experiences in BoBW had actually affected him, even if it was for only one episode. "Chain of Command", Picard just stepped back into his job like nothing happened.

And truth be told, "Rascals" was a hot mess for a lot of reasons.

 

I do love how the clothing shrank with them as if it was biological matter with a "youth" phase wherein it had a smaller mass.

 

And how they once again seem to ignore the incredible implications of what happened there: the fact that recreating the accident (and since they could reverse it, they could likely do so) could render humans (and Bajorans) potentially immortal. When you start getting creaky, just run through the transporter and ZAPP! You're eleven years old again.

 

They did that with Pulaski too in "Unnatural Selection. " Really annoying how it gets ignored.

 

blablabla
Enlightened 24th century humans aren't scared of ageing and dying anymore
smethingsomething
Transhumanism and all other forms of reversing or stopping ageing are considered unnatural in the UFP
blablabla
Another excuse to keep the universe from being unfilmable since you'd have to cast exclusively people who are 25 and somehow keep them at 25 for however long the show lasts

 

Well Deep Fake tech will change that soon enough.

 

Ummm. Except the clothes didn't shrink - the arms and legs are clearly too long in these shots (check Ro for the most obvious example)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/Rascals_TNG.jpg

 

Hey! That laughing-to-crying stuff was GRR--EAT drama! Well, of course Picard had massive trauma!!

 

That seems to be a core premise of our culture, the notion that experiencing a long natural life is good, but artificially extending said life is bad. I remember "Tuck Everlasting" was the most dramatic example of this, its message was that a grim, oppressive, mortal existence was better than an idyllic immortal one.

 

I Figure it's sour grapes. Re-Gaining youth and living for centuries is unavailable, so people have to convince themselves that it would, somehow, be undesirable.

 

Puberty again? Thank you no. I would gladly shed 40 years. It's those last ten...

 

Since the nature of the phenomenon is unknown, we don't know if it actually results in longer life. For all we know, Picard might still die at around age 140, only looking about (24th century) 80 at the time. Or it might prove that you get younger in appearance, but then aging starts again at an accelerated pace.

The same of course might hold for the rejuvenation transport of dr. Pulaski, but in that particular case, her aging was not natural in the first place.

 

Whatever it is, it's not a new phenomenon. In "The Odyssey", the titular protagonist is offered immortality by Calypso. He turns it down so he can return to his wife.

I do think know... having that level of energy and a lifetime of wisdom... might make for an interesting experience.

Well, it's telling that no one bothered to find out. One wonders if anyone ever tried to recreate the accident...

 

I think it is partly the echoes of traditional stories like the Odyssey (see also whole swathes of vampire stories, among various other sources as well). But I think it's an ingrained *subconcious* influence on a lot of writers because if they were really fully thinking it through they would see that not all immortality concepts are created equal. Most of the traditional stories are about being offered immortality but remaining in a normal/mortal society. There are some genuinely good arguments against that idea. It's just that those arguments seem to hang over all concepts of immortality despite the fact that they obviously aren't relevant to ideas where an entire society could be offered immortality.

 

One aspect of it is actually joked about in Mad Magazine's parody of "Hook"... the idea that Peter Pan, effectively immortal, falls in love with Wendy. So, he decides to grow up, and ultimately die. So, love = death, and isn't that a lovely message for the kids watching? However, declining immortality due to romantic love is common, seen everywhere from Homer's Odyssey to Disney's "Hercules".

 

They can easily be swapped out for more appropriate sizes later, for as long as they stay little.

Immortality could be done in other ways, like very young Trill children receiving a symbiont that used to live in an older person (or something similar).

 

All the mistakes I could not make.

 

I think it's making peace with a deeply uncomfortable reality. And the unfathomable idea of being able to undo that reality leads to stories that make peace with a life well lived.

 

This makes one wonder what a lifetime on another planet might do.
Well, in 'The Inner Light' that happened and in the next episode Picard is back in command.