Why do people die in Star Trek?

[Kemaiku]

Even elementary particles exhibit properties extremely difficult to understand, given how many make up the most simple molecule, it's insulting to the particles to imply anything made from them is that mundane or "simple", that it could not express itself an equally large plethora of ways.

And yes, bosons and fermions alone having such pronounced wavicle nature is enough to say that disregarding their function as purely and apathetically mechanical is bunk.

 

[dswynne1]

You know, this thread gives me the idea of how S31 could have created clones of Kirk and crew, set during the 25th century in the PT, for the back drop of ST09. Silly idea...

 

[Drone]

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.

It saved Kim and Neelix. Ever used again? Carey certainly didn't get the special treatment. Perhaps the argument could be made that the type of cellular destruction suffered from the weapon fire wasn't amenable to the nanoprobes being effective. But there were certainly other casualties.

Naturally, the majority of the comments on overcoming death have ostensibly been about Starfleet types that might be meeting that fate other than, possibly through the use of the transporter, But while the question of the OP did specify this kind of a scenario, I find that I wonder about mortality during this time generally. A few have spoken to the implication of the offering of immortality. I would focus as well, on the little remarked natural process of aging and the eventual decay and degradation of the physical shell. Certainly, the lifespan for humans is longer, significantly so, but not to the extent of biblical dimensions. Do we see much indication of human's desire to turn back the clock, and somehow have themselves restored to a perpetually youthful age, for even much longer spans? Do we know of such technology that was being developed to create such a future? The Companion brought such a capability to bear on Cochrane, but I don't recall something of the same character being shown otherwise, but again, there are many episodes of TNG and DS9 I wouldn't be able to cite.

I guess my answer is that people die because they still philosophically cling to the assumption that life is fundamentally a cycle that has definable parts and an acceptable conclusion. Certainly, humans would accept a continued uptick in the number of years allotted them, on average, but I just don't think that we have yet to see a fundamental change in expectations for the character of lif,e that substantively varies much from what we experience today..

 

[at Quark's]

Still, transporters can do amazing things. If it's possible to restore dr. Pulaski to her middle-aged self, with the help of a transporter and a few cells of unaffected DNA (unnatural selection), then why would it be impossible to restore a crewman that only had been shot seconds before in the same way? (provided of course that unaffected cells were kept in storage for just that purpose)

 

[Kemaiku]

Plot.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I guess my answer is that people die because they still philosophically cling to the assumption that life is fundamentally a cycle that has definable parts and an acceptable conclusion. Certainly, humans would accept a continued uptick in the number of years allotted them, on average, but I just don't think that we have yet to see a fundamental change in expectations for the character of lif,e that substantively varies much from what we experience today..

Thank you... but I care about the physical - not the philosophical! Life would still be a cycle:
Be Born, Die, Be Reborn In Transporter, (and the cycle continues with the first step, then on forever!)

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Drone]

If that's the mechanism that's available to those that want to achieve that state as their desired result, fine, but I think my statement is salient to what you're talking about by addressing the question of how likely it is that individuals in the 24th century, or later, would actually choose that condition as an unquestioned goal. That would be the real bottom line, not, that it could be done, don't you agree?

 

[Drone]

Plot.

Yes, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten to see Carey's Voyager construction and had that cathartic moment at the end of the episode. A bit more seriously, I'm not sure that his death ever really upset me. However close to the finish line, it seemed to be just a reminder that a career in Starfleet, especially in Voyager's case, such an isolated one, always possessed dangers that could claim lives, even in such a senselessly carried out method. That it occurred to a member of the crew that we at least had some acquaintance with over time, made the point all the more salient, IMO.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Unfortunately Carey was a really bad choice to kill off in that episode. Prior to Friendship One he had only appeared in season 1 episodes or flashback episodes set during the first season (like Relativity and Fury) leading many to believe he had already been killed. So, they took a guy who was virtually absent for seven years and brought him back a few episodes away from the finale just to kill him. They really should have just gone with someone from the main cast, or if that's considered too gauche, someone like Vorik.

 

[Mudd]

Nah, the lovely thing about Carey was that he did go back to the beginning of the show, and you'd forgotten about him and you see him and it's "oh, look, I remember him" and then BAM after seven lucky years he don't make it home.

 

[Mudd]

Oh, and to the OP's question: because a story in which no one can die is stupid.

 

[publiusr]

Or hard to write for. Immortals rules in AD&D, say.

 

[Brainsucker]

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?

@PhaserLightShow

Birth Control? Population control?

 

[PhaserLightShow]

That is an aspect of the future that I personally find both engaging and alien. It is quite interesting to consider the idea that instead of working so much, that people are pursing their passions or goals, rather than working in a manner current to contemporary society.
I wouldn't have to work for the materials for my cosplay-I could just make them and it would authentic



So? We are dealing within the metaphysics of the universe of Star Trek. And, regardless of philosophical framework, there is something unique about individuals, call it a soul, or quantum signature, or atomic space, or what-have-you. It is uniquely present, even if it can't be quantified, which is why it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.


That was part of a DS9 episode as well. A man cloned himself, murdered it, and then framed Odo.

My question is a scientific one within Star Trek. And no, I do not believe there is anything unique about individuals except the arrangement of particles that create them. That could be replicated with the Replicator or Transporter.

@PhaserLightShow

 

[Longinus]

My question is a scientific one within Star Trek. And no, I do not believe there is anything unique about individuals except the arrangement of particles that create them. That could be replicated with the Replicator or Transporter.

But it can't, otherwise they would do it. Insert technobabble as needed to explain why this is so.

I think I said this already in this thread (not going to check): people form in their minds an interpretation of how tech in Star Trek is supposed to work, and then wonder why it is not used in other logical ways that would follow from their interpretation. Guess what, this does not imply that the people in the show are stupid, it means that your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Paradise City]

Well....I...don't...know....

I did think they had the old death thing cracked. When they beamed back Jean Luc from the big cloud he was beamed into in the first season, I thought they had finally consigned the Grim Reaper to the dole queue. "Ah, look the record of his pattern just so happens to be in the buffer, we can have the cranky old space dog back in a jiffy, no problem."

 

[fireproof78]

My question is a scientific one within Star Trek. And no, I do not believe there is anything unique about individuals except the arrangement of particles that create them. That could be replicated with the Replicator or Transporter.

@PhaserLightShow

Which doesn't fit with how the tech is presented though.

 

[JWPlatt]

An atomic deposition 3D printer could do it.

 

[The Wormhole]

Besides, even if we entertain the idea for the moment that it is possible to exactly replicate a person with a transporter/biological replicator/whatever, guess what, that still won't stop death. Individual people will still die and they won't be able to come back. The only difference is that their loved ones, rather than dealing with the death and moving on will have the option of creating a duplicate of the person. This duplicate might be the exact same as the person they're replacing, might even have their memories, but in the end, they are not that person. That person still died, from their point of view, they are not experiencing resurrection or a continuation of life. They're dead, they're either experiencing nothing, or they've walked into the white light which may or may not be on the other side. The fact their friends and family have created a duplicate to avoid grieving isn't going to change this.

 

[JWPlatt]

i.e. the subjective experience is terminal. Good point.