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)
TNG cloned Ryker. DS9 had that mirror universe arc. I forget if voyager had anything.
But the Ryker thing raises the question… is it really a transportation device or if they’re just flash-cloning a new copy? Like. Think about it. The accident was that a second Ryker showed up. A second flash clone.
Voyager had all sorts of weird shit.
I still really love it.
Oh. Right. Now I remember. Tuvix.
That was only the most obvious.
Shit was wild, and that was the point.