Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdcsu!herbie
From: herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS])
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Aging & Bifocals
Message-ID: <1320@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 14:26:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1320
Posted: Sun Apr 28 14:26:48 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 00:11:13 EDT
References: <1652@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS])
Organization: U of Waterloo
Lines: 31
Summary: 

In article <1652@ut-ngp.UUCP> xavier@ut-ngp.UUCP ( Xavier) writes:
>
>	After watching the Star Trek movies, one can 
>	certainly see that the characters have aged
>	some (at least).  In fact we see Kirk using
>	bifocals.  Presently, there are techniques
>	now being used to "repair" the lense.  Surely
>	in the Warp Era, techniques would have been
>	improved to such a point where his eyes would
>	be good as new.  Also, doesn't one expect that
>	new treatments (like Warp version of Oil of
>	Olay) would exist to retard or even reverse
>	aging?  Aging (or general deterioration) would
>	be optional.  But for a guy who yearns to return
>	to command a starship, keeping young would be
>	a must.  And of course the transporter could
>	always be used to rejuvenate the body while
>	the ship's computer or another device could be
>	used to keep one's memory while the body is being
>	rejuvenated. Can anyone come with a good reason
>	why the crew is getting older?

there is a throwaway line somewhere in that scene where Kirk says
that he's allergic to the standard treatment.  also, who says that
extended lifespans means that we will not LOOK old?  as far as using the
transporter is concerned, i'd rather not use that.  it's another
inconsistency in the whole ST universe.

Herb Chong...

I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....