Captain archer was linked with his own future, and he was almost religiously against transporter tech straight out of the gate, to a degree that seems weird if he didn’t have a reason to be.
I understand the narrative reasons for this, but looking at him as a person, he seems overly Luddite with respect to this specific tech, in a way he isn’t with most others we can see. He’s actually pretty progressive with respect to his society in many facets.
That’s a bit weird, unless we consider his life includes time travel as a core concept, so he knew Scotty would lose Porthos, and though he couldn’t do anything about that, he had an almost innate distrust of transporters.
Does that make sense?
(I mostly mean the events of ENT and some TNG, VOY, all new movies since 2009, etc in that timeline, but perhaps the other, too)
I don’t remember if it’s come up, does the federations/earths dislike of genetic and other such augmentation extend to animals? If not, I wouldn’t think it entirely impossible for them to have found an actual cure to aging, sufficient to make the lifespan of an organism indefinite until killed by some accident or infection, for some common species like a dog, but found that the technique requires the use of tech they aren’t willing to deploy in humans (though the aversion to it would have to be crazy strong to give up that temptation I’d imagine.)
Look at the animal testing on mice. We have cured so much for mice that we have not for humans. Maybe dogs have better medicine than humans?
If there’s so much dislike for it, it must have got pretty far along its development, which means extensive animal testing. If that were happening when my dog was still alive and I had any contacts in such programmes, I’d at least strongly consider signing him up for late stage trials that might prolong his life by that much. And can you imagine the value of whatever company figures this out? I think most people would agree dogs don’t live long enough. That’s my hypothetical head cannon.