Why do people die in Star Trek?

[PhaserLightShow]

In Star Trek, officers such as "Red Shirts" and Captain Spock die.
How do they die?
With the transporter you could make their last pattern rematerialize. And in TNG, DS9, and VOY, you could replicate the body. Why is that not done?

Star Trek: Questions
Captains Log, Stardate 2016.331
Someone in our crew has died.
I recommended we reinstate his pattern but the Transporter Chief said no. I wonder why? He says he is Vulcan; could he be a Romulan and trying to stop us from having a valuable member of our crew???
End Log

@PhaserLightShow

 

[T'Girl]

You would have to have someone in the transporter to alter into the person you want to come out. There has to be something to work with. And there is likely limits to how much of a change the transdporter can impose.

You put someone's corpse into the transporter and set it for "younger," you'd might get out a nice young corpse, but not a living person.

There is nothing in any of the series to suggest that the transporter can reanimte a corpse.

They couldn't even recreate Neelix's missing lung, because there was nothing there (in his chest) to work with.

†

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The transporter buffer and stuff.

You can't replicate a person because of the often stated limitation of replicating complex organic patterns.

The in universe explanation of why you can't use the transporter to make human backups is that the size of data is too huge and complex to store for very long, and you can't materialize the pattern without destroying it. This is supported in Relics and Our Man Bashir.

 

[BillJ]

It's TV. No death equals no drama.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

The transporter converts matter into energy and then rematerialises said matter into the original pattern (when they work properly that is), they can't create new matter--it's not some kind of cloning machine...although that is kinda what happened in "Second Chances", though there was a second annular confinement beam in the mix there...hmm.

Besides alternate timelines/universes/protomatter/[insert technobabble here] can resurrect dead characters whenever the plot demands it.

 

[B.J.]

You would have to have someone in the transporter to alter into the person you want to come out. There has to be something to work with.

I'd agree with you, but unfortunately Thomas Riker would probably disagree. No idea how they suddenly gained the mass of another Riker to materialize.

 

[Longinus]

We had an argument about this recently in some random thread. My argument was that it cannot be done. Replicators cannot replicate really complex things such as living beings and transporters are not copying machines. If you need an explanation for the latter, let's say that transporters use quantum data and are thus governed by no-cloning theorem. What we seen on screen seems to mostly support this.

 

[Longinus]

I'd agree with you, but unfortunately Thomas Riker would probably disagree. No idea how they suddenly gained the mass of another Riker to materialize.

Mass is not the problem, it is just matter. The pattern is the problem, if it is quantum data, it should be impossible to duplicate it. But maybe there is some alternate universe where Riker vanished in a transporter accident on Nervala IV. But whatever was the reason for the double-Riker, it is safe to say it is something that cannot be intentionally repeated.

 

[Tomalak]

I'd agree with you, but unfortunately Thomas Riker would probably disagree. No idea how they suddenly gained the mass of another Riker to materialize.

Same place those two Kirks came from, or where half of Tuvix's mass went. There must be some kind of matter slush tank in the transporter system.

 

[hux]

The duplication has to happen when you're alive otherwise it duplicates the dead thing. I'm sure Section 31 have explored the technology and duplicated people. I suspect there's another Sloane out there.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

In Our Man Bashir they tried to dump five transporter patterns into the main computer and it took up the entire computer and the holosuites. I suppose that suggests it is possible to save the patterns and replicate them except the plot reason you can't is that if you try to store transporter patterns they 'degrade'.

 

[JWPlatt]

Since the transporter is a suicide box, it cannot be used as anything other than a clone device. Which is what it is. That's what makes everyone who steps into one so brave; they know they're about to die and someone else exactly like them will continue on doing exactly what they would have done. Except for that Riker guy.

 

[Kemaiku]

To escape the monotony.

 

[Terok Nor]

There's no need for the transporter to resurrect people when Star Trek has already Borg nanoprobes, an injection that cures death and various other methods available.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Same place those two Kirks came from, or where half of Tuvix's mass went. There must be some kind of matter slush tank in the transporter system.

Yes, the data of matter is always stored in the Pattern Buffer. I say we can replicate matter from there.

It's TV. No death equals no drama.

I am talking about the in-universe (inside the Star Trek fictional world), not the real-life reasons. Dead people in STAR TREK don't care about drama.

Mass is not the problem, it is just matter. The pattern is the problem, if it is quantum data, it should be impossible to duplicate it. But maybe there is some alternate universe where Riker vanished in a transporter accident on Nervala IV. But whatever was the reason for the double-Riker, it is safe to say it is something that cannot be intentionally repeated.

But the reason the double-Riker was created was a double-anular-confinement beam (that holds a pattern together). I believe that could be done again. Why not?
The pattern of Lieutenant Riker was duplicated (we get Tom, and we get Will). Why is that not done elsewhere in Star Trek (to make 2 Jean-Luc Picard's so one can command the Enterprise-D and be safe, while another can be leading an away team)?

 

[The Wormhole]

I am talking about the in-universe (inside the Star Trek fictional world), not the real-life reasons. Dead people in STAR TREK don't care about drama.

People in the Star Trek verse are pious about being "enlightened." Allowing primitive civilizations to die is more enlightened than saving them since that would reveal aliens exist and contaminate them, worse than extinction apparently. Children are taught it's not enlightened to mourn loved ones when they die. We can infer it's likely not enlightened to intentionally create transporter clones, regardless the intent behind it.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

People in the Star Trek verse are pious about being "enlightened." Allowing primitive civilizations to die is more enlightened than saving them since that would reveal aliens exist and contaminate them, worse than extinction apparently. Children are taught it's not enlightened to mourn loved ones when they die. We can infer it's likely not enlightened to intentionally create transporter clones, regardless the intent behind it.

Enlightened?!
I don't care what people think of what I do (whether it is enlightened or not).
How is it enlightened to mourn dead people? When were children taught that in the 24th century.

@PhaserLightShow
(and the land of "phantasy" @HMS Ark Royal claims I live in)

 

[Kor]

Why do people die in Star Trek?
Because they stop living.

Kor

 

[Longinus]

But the reason the double-Riker was created was a double-anular-confinement beam (that holds a pattern together). I believe that could be done again. Why not?
The pattern of Lieutenant Riker was duplicated (we get Tom, and we get Will). Why is that not done elsewhere in Star Trek (to make 2 Jean-Luc Picard's so one can command the Enterprise-D and be safe, while another can be leading an away team)?

Because it's not possible. What happened to Riker was a freak accident in unusual circumstances and cannot be intentionally recreated. Why it works that way? I don't know. Insert made up technobabble as needed. If really knew how transporters worked I'd be filling a patent application instead of arguing about TV shows on the internet.

 

[The Wormhole]

When were children taught that in the 24th century.

TNG season 1.