Questions of culture's attitude to the transporter

[DarthPooky]

Oh sorry didn't get that part about the smiley face.

[DarthPooky]

What about my other question. If transporters kill people or if there is a chance that they do kill. Then why dose almost every one in star trek almost universally use them. Even ones who have expressed distrust of the transporter like bones or Barkly still use it. So as i said with all the different cultures peoples beliefs and religions why would every one use and accept them.

[biostem]

What about my other question. If transporters kill people or if there is a chance that they do kill. Then why dose almost every one in star trek almost universally use them. Even ones who have expressed distrust of the transporter like bones or Barkly still use it. So as i said with all the different cultures peoples beliefs and religions why would every one use and accept them.

IMO, it's a matter of philosophy. In Star Trek, the Federation is a very homogenous, generally non-religious institution, whose members seem to have these "armchair philosopher" leanings. They don't seem to look too deeply into their own actions, but only at the surface elements instead - they have great medical technology, have outlawed genetic engineering, have great entertainment that allows its users to realize almost any fantasy they want, but at the same time, don't have any problems with loading ships that encounter dangerous situations with children, and create full scale prototypes of untested, potentially disastrous technology straight from the drawing board. They may not see the discontinuity of existence that a transporter causes as "death", since the technology they put so much faith in can't possibly fail or harm them - after all, it sprung from their own collective genius...

[DarthPooky]

IMO, it's a matter of philosophy. In Star Trek, the Federation is a very homogenous, generally non-religious institution

I was referring not just to the Feds but to most of the other nations And cultures. Like the Klingons Romulans Cardassians bajorins and So on.

[Borgholio]

It could simply be a safety issue. Planes crash every now and then, yet we still fly. Cars kill thousands every year and yet we still drive. Benefits tend to outweigh the risks. What we are never shown is how many shuttle accidents there are. If everybody in the galaxy used shuttles there would be shuttle accidents...that's unavoidable. Are the number of shuttle accidents higher per trip than the transporter? If so, then why use a shuttle if the transporter is overall safer?

[Batman]

What about my other question. If transporters kill people or if there is a chance that they do kill. Then why dose almost every one in star trek almost universally use them. Even ones who have expressed distrust of the transporter like bones or Barkly still use it. So as i said with all the different cultures peoples beliefs and religions why would every one use and accept them.

IMO, it's a matter of philosophy. In Star Trek, the Federation is a very homogenous, generally non-religious institution, whose members seem to have these "armchair philosopher" leanings. They don't seem to look too deeply into their own actions, but only at the surface elements instead - they have great medical technology, have outlawed genetic engineering, have great entertainment that allows its users to realize almost any fantasy they want, but at the same time, don't have any problems with loading ships that encounter dangerous situations with children, and create full scale prototypes of untested, potentially disastrous technology straight from the drawing board. They may not see the discontinuity of existence that a transporter causes as "death", since the technology they put so much faith in can't possibly fail or harm them - after all, it sprung from their own collective genius...

That's all TNG and onwards, though, when nobody batted an eye about using the transporter in Pike's era, leave alone the TOS run -yes, Bones grumbled about it apparently, but the thing was in widespread use long before TNG's philosophical failings come into play, and if memory serves Dr McCoy's concerns weren't about the kill/copy nature but because he didn't trust the transporter to properly reassemble him.

[DarthPooky]

Sorry for not posting in a while Busy life you know. I was referring more to the other cultures like the Klingons the Romulans Cardassians the bajorins and how none of them. Being different cultures and religions seem to except the transporter to without question.

[Borgholio]

Again, the simplest explanation is the accident rate. Yes, being turned inside out is pretty gruesome...but so is a shuttle crash where you get a support beam thrust through your skull at just an angle to miss the critical parts of your brain and you have to live like that for who knows how many hours.

So the question remains, are shuttles safer overall or are transporters? If transporters are safer, then it's little wonder why they're in use everywhere.

[Lord Revan]

and another thing we need to be asking is how high is the accident rate really, after all we still use planes even though they can and have crashed with everyone on board being killed, how ever when you consider the total number of flighthours in relation to the deathtoll you notice that your chance of getting killed in a plane crash isn't all that high.

Also remember that it's only when the transporters fail that we focus on their use, every other time they're treated like driving to your work, thus distorting our view about their safety as we only really notice them when something is wrong.

[Batman]

That parallels the real world really-how many news reports are there about planes that don't crash? And even with the show focusing on transporter accidents, 9 times out of 10 (I'm inclined to say 99 times out of a hundred but I haven't actually run the math) they work just fine...out at the final frontier, where Valen alone knows what may (and occasionally does) interfere with their workings. Them being perfectly safe to use in a thoroughly controlled environment like core Federation worlds doesn't look at all unbelievable to me.

[DarthPooky]

and another thing we need to be asking is how high is the accident rate really, after all we still use planes even though they can and have crashed with everyone on board being killed, how ever when you consider the total number of flighthours in relation to the deathtoll you notice that your chance of getting killed in a plane crash isn't all that high.

Also remember that it's only when the transporters fail that we focus on their use, every other time they're treated like driving to your work, thus distorting our view about their safety as we only really notice them when something is wrong.

Valid point but it has me asking why no one in the federation and out. ask the big question of whether transporters kill and porduses a quantum clone of you that thinks he or she is you but isn't. Sure most people in the federation dosnt question it because its in there View almighty Technology that can never harm us. But in a nation made of Hundreds of billions of people surely someone would saye some thing and of cores all the other nations out there. you never hear any Klingon or Romulan question transporter. Come to think about it there was an ENT episode were the inventor of the transporter. Sayed that he proved that it doesn't create a copy. But of course we don't now how he prouvde it. On the Star Wars side the Hyperdrive and other technologies interfere with transporters explanation I like. It dose sound better than we just don't Use it. If anyone Else has any other explanation for why wars would not use transporters than feel free to Contribute.

[Borgholio]

The transporter clone idea is a matter of philosophy. If I rip my arm off and surgically replace it...then it's still the same arm. If you disassemble it at the subatomic level, convert it to energy, then convert it back and rebuild it...is it still the same arm or is it a new one made out of the components of the old?

Take that idea and apply it to a whole human body along with the concept of the mind and consciousness...and it becomes really tricky. Are you still actually you, or are you a copy made out of the parts of the original?

It's possible that in the SW universe the prevailing belief is that it is death and they banned the tech.

[jwl]

The transporter clone idea is a matter of philosophy. If I rip my arm off and surgically replace it...then it's still the same arm. If you disassemble it at the subatomic level, convert it to energy, then convert it back and rebuild it...is it still the same arm or is it a new one made out of the components of the old?

Take that idea and apply it to a whole human body along with the concept of the mind and consciousness...and it becomes really tricky. Are you still actually you, or are you a copy made out of the parts of the original?

It's possible that in the SW universe the prevailing belief is that it is death and they banned the tech.

Wouldn't they be able to actually tell using the force?

[Borgholio]

Tell...what? That you're a clone? I don't see how if you honestly believe you're the original. The midichlorians (puke) would be duplicated too if you were a force-sensitive.

[Darth Tanner]

It's possible that in the SW universe the prevailing belief is that it is death and they banned the tech.

That wouldn't explain why they don't use it for cargo.

[Borgholio]

It's possible that in the SW universe the prevailing belief is that it is death and they banned the tech.

That wouldn't explain why they don't use it for cargo.

True. If we assume they are capable of developing transporters, then we have to ask why they haven't yet. Perhaps, give the size of the larger transport ships, it's more efficient to load cargo the old fashioned way? The largest thing we've ever seen transported is a couple humpback whales and the water around them. Even that is small stuff compared to the kinds of cargo that SW ships carry.

[Lord Revan]

Also we're kind of forgetting the strategic element of having transporters, after all if one of your enemies (or potential enemies) develops transporter technology there's pressure for you to do the same after all the tactical and strategic advantaces of having transporter when your enemies don't are quite high. Kind of like nukes but with more tactical flexibility

how ever if it's just 1 technology you're developing and there's no external pressure to go that route it's quite easy to put it the "not worth the effort" pile.

[DarthPooky]

I hope that this isint to old a thread to be posting but on the subject of my frends argument that the federation is more. Hi tech he brought up the idea of red matter. Now I now in an earlier there'd red matter was discussed. I simply want to here your thoughts on it. It just coured to me mabey red matter is hyper matter. Of course i have no evedense but mabey some thing to discusses.

[Borgholio]

Hypermatter is used as a power source that is many many times in excess of what an anti-matter reactor can do. So far as we have ever heard, it does not spontaneously collapse into black holes the way red matter does. Red matter, conversely, doesn't seem to generate any energy but it forms into a black hole when released from containment.

[LaCroix]

Why not a simpler technical explanation - maybe they got problems with the presence of hypermatter, or the transporter doesn't work too well through their most commonly used hull materials?

If you need to build the ship with a different power system or out of exotic materials that handle the stress but allow transport to happen, or even something as simple as having to switch off particle shielding during transporter use - which exposes you to drifting space junk, causing damage to the (unarmored) ship - the civilian market will be small, considering it takes only five minutes to simply land that thing and open the gates to unload.

For a combat vessel, the armored hull might simply be too thick/dense to allow transport-boarding, ignoring the fact that you'd need to lower the shields, as well. And if theatre shields prevent teleport-airdrops, as well, you are left with no sensible scenario where a couple of shuttles (who can also provide close air support) aren't the better option.

[SilverDragonRed]

Darth Pooky, can your friend accept that the Federation can be outclassed by other settings? Isn't it enough for him the Starfleet could outperform the UNSC or any navy from Mass Effect in space, or does he think that they'll be able to survive a Dalek invasion?

[biostem]

I hope that this isint to old a thread to be posting but on the subject of my frends argument that the federation is more. Hi tech he brought up the idea of red matter. Now I now in an earlier there'd red matter was discussed. I simply want to here your thoughts on it. It just coured to me mabey red matter is hyper matter. Of course i have no evedense but mabey some thing to discusses.

The only thing red matter has ever been demonstrated to do is to form a black hole (possibly only upon contact with normal matter).

Also keep in mind that *looking* more high tech doesn't necessarily mean that something actually is more high tech. Consider, for instance, the lack of exploding consoles in Star Wars - apparently circuit breakers/fuses, or not channeling dangerous amounts of electricity into control consoles hasn't occurred to Star Trek engineers. Similarly, one of the newest and fastest Star Fleet ships at the time, (Voyager), would have taken decades to cross one quadrant of a galaxy, while even a beaten up and decades-old freighter can do it in a few hours or days...

[Lord Revan]

just to comment on that "it looks higher tech therefore it must higher tech" idea we've yet to see any sort of toilet facilities in SW now while bigger ships like the star destroyers on the Trade Federation ships probably have those off-screen (same way UFP ships have them, but are not shown) there's only so much space on the Millenium Falcon or an X-wing yet both of those are know to make long FTL trips without stops, now it takes quite a long time for UFP ships to cross the galaxy (both DS9 and VOY depend on that in their premices) far longer then anyone can "hold it" before needing a bathroom break, yet in none of the trips in canon SW it never even implied that there was breaks in the travel we didn't see.

[Darth Tanner]

there's only so much space on the Millenium Falcon or an X-wing yet both of those are know to make long FTL trips without stops

X Wing pilots would need a funnel connected to a sewage tank like modern fighter pilots use (or its built into their suit)... the Falcon I believe has a 'refresher' on its schematics.

I'm not sure what that has to do with appearance of technology unless your implying that lack of toilet facilities necessitates higher speeds?

[Lord Revan]

there's only so much space on the Millenium Falcon or an X-wing yet both of those are know to make long FTL trips without stops

X Wing pilots would need a funnel connected to a sewage tank like modern fighter pilots use (or its built into their suit)... the Falcon I believe has a 'refresher' on its schematics.

I'm not sure what that has to do with appearance of technology unless your implying that lack of toilet facilities necessitates higher speeds?

it does imply it indirectly as shorter travel time needs either shorter distances (and GFFA can't be that much smaller then Milky Wat as in AOTC it's spiral galaxy with 2 satelites) or faster speeds and we know it takes around 70-80 years to travel from Delta Quadrant to the UFP and also in DS9 (the series that is) the whole primise relies on the idea that you can't travel from Alpha quadrant or at least the portion where the federation is which is near the Beta Quadrant border to Gamman Quadrant in few days at most.