Tranporters, Atomic Level Murder

[JamesHande]

I recently ended a debate with a hardcore trekkie fan who continuously referred to transporter technology as his catch all for every debate issue. I gently reminded him that transporters require that the shields of the target craft have to be down for them to have any tactical value, but I want to know if there are any other arguments that the forum would suggest against these annoying unethical travel devices...

Thanks.

[The Romulan Republic]

From what I've read, transporters can be blocked by various types of energy, minerals, and of course shields. You can no doubt find a lot about this through searching the forums. Of course, some transporters are better than others (ie the Borg and Dominion sometimes being able to beam through Federation shields).

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

[Darth Tedious]

Transporters won't be much good against SW ships, because their hulls are made of Durasteel.

Durasteel was an incredibly strong and versatile metal alloy, created from carvanium, lommite, carbon, meleenium, neutronium, and zersium.

From Wookieepedia, with referenced sources.

And now from Memory Alpha (with sources included):

Neutronium is a rare, dense mineral, found naturally in the cores of neutron stars. It was impossible to scan inside neutronium. (TNG: "Evolution"; TOS: "The Doomsday Machine") Despite many readings and theories, Starfleet was never able to produce neutronium artificially. (VOY: "Think Tank")

Even if they can beam through the stuff, they'll be playing Russian Roulette doing so. Not being able to scan through it means you have a good chance of transporting into a wall/floor/whatever. And dying.
In TNG:"Relics", the Enterprise-D nearly crashed into a Dyson sphere with a carbon/neutronium alloy construction, because their scanners didn't see it (and Scotty's ship did crash into it for the same reason).
Point being, if you can't scan through it, it's suicidal to beam through it.
And as for the "They can beam a photon torpedo directly into the SW ship's reactor theory, how will they know where the reactor is?
There's more fun to be had with Neutronium alloys (they're impervious to phaser fire and photon torpedos- ref. TNG:"Relics" and TOS:"The Doomsday Machine") but that's a whole thread's worth on it's own.

[Captain Seafort]

In TNG:"Relics", the Enterprise-D nearly crashed into a Dyson sphere with a carbon/neutronium alloy construction, because their scanners didn't see it (and Scotty's ship did crash into it for the same reason).

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, these points are both plain wrong. The problem both ships had with detecting the sphere was due its mass, not its composite materials. Moreover, neither of them came close to running into it on first encounter - the Jenolan crashed when she inadvertently triggered one of the sphere's tractor beams, which overloaded her engines.

[Batman]

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, these points are both plain wrong. The problem both ships had with detecting the sphere was due its mass, not its composite materials.

Okay, it's been eons since I saw that episode but are you telling me TNG era ships had a problem detecting the Dyson Sphere because it was too bloody massive? Because that would make an incredible amount of no sense.

As for the problems with beaming through the hull, how, exactly, are they even going to get to that point? AQ transporters can't even beam through their own shields, how pray tell are they going to get through Wars shields? Which do tend to be up in a combat situation.
Assumes the Trek side actually lives long enough to get into transporter range to begin with (I remember a 40,000 km figure from somewhere I'm pretty sure wasn't the TNG TM).

[Adam Reynolds]

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

How do you suggest they work then?

[The Romulan Republic]

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

How do you suggest they work then?

Yes, they disassemble and reassemble people. But unless you contend that their is a soul which leaves the body during transport, the same person is still there at the end. Same body, same mind. It's really quite simple.

Of course, you may argue that their is a soul that leaves the body during transport if you wish, but I will expect evidence.

Edit: don't count on any more replies until Sunday night at the soonest. I will be out of town, and may lack internet access. Just don't want to look like I'm ducking out of a debate.

[Patrick Degan]

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

Not quite. This issue has been raised in SF forums wholly independent of Trek or any consideration of its universe. Larry Niven, to name one example, examined the question on at least one form of mechanical teleportation for an article he penned back in the 60s or 70s. Hardly unique or particularly fashioned to "make Trek look bad".

[The Romulan Republic]

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

Not quite. This issue has been raised in SF forums wholly independent of Trek or any consideration of its universe. Larry Niven, to name one example, examined the question on at least one form of mechanical teleportation for an article he penned back in the 60s or 70s. Hardly unique or particularly fashioned to "make Trek look bad".

Fair enough, I suppose, but I usually see it come up in anti-Trek circles these days.

[Darth Tedious]

In TNG:"Relics", the Enterprise-D nearly crashed into a Dyson sphere with a carbon/neutronium alloy construction, because their scanners didn't see it (and Scotty's ship did crash into it for the same reason).

While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, these points are both plain wrong. The problem both ships had with detecting the sphere was due its mass, not its composite materials. Moreover, neither of them came close to running into it on first encounter - the Jenolan crashed when she inadvertently triggered one of the sphere's tractor beams, which overloaded her engines.

Check out what happened when they found the thing:

RIKER: Sensors?
DATA: I am having difficulty scanning the object. However, it would appear to be approximately two hundred million kilometers in diameter.
RIKER: That's nearly the size of Earth's orbit around the sun.
PICARD: Why didn't we detect it before now?
DATA: The object's enormous mass is causing a great deal of gravimetric interference. That might have prevented our sensors from detecting the object before we dropped out of warp.

Notice how Data said might have (read: "I'm not sure but my first guess would be..."). Every other episode I've referenced indicates that UFP sensors have real trouble with Neutronium, so it's a more likely cause for them not seeing it than "Maybe we couldn't see it from light years away because it's just so huge."
I still stand by 95% my oringinal statement(thanks for reminding me about the tractor beam). Still, both ships came dangerously close to plowing into the thing at warp speed. If either ship had continued at warp for another tenth of a second, they would be a smear. I'd call that 'nearly crashed into it'.

On the subject at hand:

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

Remember Dr. McCoy's abhorrence of transporters? There are even in-universe suggestions that they are ethically questionable. So it certainly isn't just anti-Trek wank.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know the specifics of McCoy's complaint, but a lot of people have irrational phobias. A lot of people have misguided opinions about certain types of technology. One vague quote means very little.

Could you please provide an exact quote and source?

[Darth Tedious]

In TOS:"Space Seed"-

I signed aboard this ship to practice medicine, not to have my atoms scattered back and forth across space by this gadget.

And in TNG:"Encounter At Farpoint"-

Have you got some reason you want my atoms scattered out all over space, boy?

By the time he had been promoted to Branch Admiral (TNG era), he was able to request a shuttlecraft instead of being transported (ref:Encounter at Farpoint). There may be more examples from TOS, but my knowledge thereof is limited.
Dr. Pulaski also had an aversion to transporters, expressed in TNG:"Unnatural Selection". After having a bizarre maedical condition cured by use of the transporter-

PULASKI: Captain... If this hadn't worked? If...
PICARD: (clears his throat) It would have been necessary to beam your energy into empty space. Happily, there's no reason to concern yourself with --
PULASKI: Why should I be concerned about having my atoms spread across the galaxy? I imagine that's what's going to happen every time I use the damn thing.

That's two very well-respected doctors (who have sworn the Hippocratic oath and are quite concerned with ethics regarding the presevation of life) expressing distaste for the transporter.
If you want irrational fear as opposed to ethical concern, better to look in the direction of Reg "chickenshit" Barklay (TNG:"Realm of Fear")-

Actually, this isn't the first time I've been... apprehensive. Every single time I've had to do it, I've had a certain feeling of... I guess you could call it... mortal terror.

My point is that the moral issue has been raised in-universe, not just made up by haters.
Personally, I think it's a very grey area. I would be nervous about being transported myself, but I was born in the 20th century. Were I living in the 23rd or 24th century, I'd probably take transporters for granted. Hell, I'd probably still use them even if I had given them a second thought.

[Jawawithagun]

Check out what happened when they found the thing:

RIKER: Sensors?
DATA: I am having difficulty scanning the object. However, it would appear to be approximately two hundred million kilometers in diameter.
RIKER: That's nearly the size of Earth's orbit around the sun.
PICARD: Why didn't we detect it before now?
DATA: The object's enormous mass is causing a great deal of gravimetric interference. That might have prevented our sensors from detecting the object before we dropped out of warp.

Oh god, that's scary. Considering there are more than a few stars around the size of Earth's orbit and larger them not showing up on their sensors is quite the design fault.

[Franc28]

Yes, they disassemble and reassemble people. But unless you contend that their is a soul which leaves the body during transport, the same person is still there at the end. Same body, same mind. It's really quite simple.

Of course, you may argue that their is a soul that leaves the body during transport if you wish, but I will expect evidence.

You seem to be very confused, because you've got the argument all backwards. IF you believe in the soul, as separate from the atoms of the body, THEN you might believe transporters do not destroy the essence of "you." The soul may very well remain there with or without the atoms being disassembled into their component pieces.

But if you are purely materialist and believe there is fundamentally nothing but the component particles, then your argument is seriously flawed. It is NOT the "same body" or the "same mind," as has been established many times before.

The only way out of this argument is to define the self as an arrangement of form instead of a continuity of form. But this leads to many profound paradoxes (i.e. instant cloning creating another "self" that is also you).

[Ritterin Sophia]

I disagree that transporters kill though. It strikes me as fanwank to make Trek look bad.

How does it make Trek look bad if they kill someone? From a technical standpoint in order for you to be turned into pure energy your life functions need to be interrupted entirely for a fraction of a second. That's functionally dead. The only ambiguity is when someone is converted back into matter, when it's asked is that really the original person or a clone? Does it even matter?

But unless you contend that their is a soul which leaves the body during transport, the same person is still there at the end.

You'd first have to define exactly what you mean by a 'soul'.

[Darth Tedious]

You'd first have to define exactly what you mean by a 'soul'.

I think that would be a worth a whole seperate thread, on a different forum...

The only ambiguity is when someone is converted back into matter, when it's asked is that really the original person or a clone? Does it even matter?

This is the important part, I think. It could well matter from an ethical standpoint, but that's up to the individual.
But consider this- if it is a clone who steps out of the transporter, the original person does die.
To put more descriptively, you step in, someone says "Energise", and your stream of conciousness ends. You die. All of your thoughts, feelings and your physical form cease. A clone gets produced at the other end, with all of your memories, believing they are you. But you are dead. That's why it would matter. But you wouldn't know it, because you died. You do not experience what your clone does. And this happens everytime someone uses a transporter. But noone notices it, because they are all clones, not the original (dead) versions of themselves. If that's what happens (and I'm not sure it does), it is a bit macabre. I think that's what we should be debating- does this take place?
Of course this would not apply in the case of a soul moving from one body to another, but I don't want to open that can of worms... it could lead to monumental derailment.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I think that would be a worth a whole seperate thread, on a different forum...

It really wouldn't. He's trying to say that if transporters kill, and they have to given they take you apart at a subatomic level, that something leaves you. He has to define what this something is or we can't discuss this subject. Does he mean a soul in the religious sense or does he mean the particular electrical discharges that form our entire personality? We know the latter is replicated in it's entirety, the former... well we need to define the specifics of that. We've handled harder topics on this forum before, I'm sure we'll get by without tiptoeing around issues.

This is the important part, I think. It could well matter from an ethical standpoint, but that's up to the individual.
But consider this- if it is a clone who steps out of the transporter, the original person does die.
To put more descriptively, you step in, someone says "Energise", and your stream of conciousness ends. You die. All of your thoughts, feelings and your physical form cease. A clone gets produced at the other end, with all of your memories, believing they are you. But you are dead.

Are you really, though? Is it a clone or is it you? A clone is identical on the genetic level, this is something else entirely. Can you even perceive the loss? If you can't does it even matter? Quite a conundrum.

[Jawawithagun]

How does it make Trek look bad if they kill someone? From a technical standpoint in order for you to be turned into pure energy your life functions need to be interrupted entirely for a fraction of a second. That's functionally dead. The only ambiguity is when someone is converted back into matter, when it's asked is that really the original person or a clone? Does it even matter?

A stasis chamber interrupts your life functions too - for a much longer time though. Is it any different just because it doesn't take the body apart?

[Franc28]

What does the nature of the soul have to do with this discussion? It's just a side-issue. The main issue is that of the nature of the self.

[Ritterin Sophia]

A stasis chamber interrupts your life functions too - for a much longer time though. Is it any different just because it doesn't take the body apart?

It depends on what kind of stasis chamber we're talking about. But then, this is irrelevant. Murder is an unlawful killing and I never made the claim that 'energizing' someone was an unlawful killing.

What does the nature of the soul have to do with this discussion? It's just a side-issue. The main issue is that of the nature of the self.

I don't know, which is why I asked him to define what a 'soul' is and what it's relevancy is.

[Darth Tedious]

A stasis chamber interrupts your life functions too - for a much longer time though. Is it any different just because it doesn't take the body apart?

It is possible to contend that Stasis doesn't interrupt your life functions- it slows down or stops time around you. This difference could be viewed as semantic, though. The more important issue is one of continuity. The same body (and as such, the same person) goes into and comes out of stasis. Transporters, on the other hand, do not maintain this continuity.
It's also worth noting that sneezing interrupts enough of your life functions for you to be considerd clinically dead while you're doing it. And it certainly doesn't have any ethical issues attached to it.

What does the nature of the soul have to do with this discussion? It's just a side-issue. The main issue is that of the nature of the self.

I don't know, which is why I asked him to define what a 'soul' is and what it's relevancy is.

I agree that the nature of the self is the important question. The presence of some kind of soul (and whether or not it is maintained or destroyed/lost through the process of transporters is of some relevance, though.
If, for example, your soul left your body as it was dispersed, and re-entered your new body as it was reconstructed, continuity of the self would be maintained. There is a level of relevance in the nature of the soul, and some of the greyness about transporter ethics stems from that. I would still think we should keep this thread away from that particular philosophical can of worms, if we can...

Murder is an unlawful killing and I never made the claim that 'energizing' someone was an unlawful killing.

The issue would appear to be about whether transporters kill at all. If they do, using one by choice would be a form of suicide. There have been examples of people being transported agaist their wishes and/or without warning, which would be murder.

[Franc28]

What does the law have to do with this? This is not a legal discussion. You guys seem to be constantly going into irrelevant tangents. If transporters kill people, then it is immoral to use them regardless of whether it is against the law, unless one wishes to commit suicide.

The only relevant issue, as I see it, is whether transporters do kill people as part of their normal operations. To which, unless one believes in the soul (an absurd view, in this modern age, and goes against everything we know about the brain and its operations) or in the self being an arrangement of form instead of a continuity of form (a view which is in itself coherent but falls to many profound paradoxes), one must reply yes.

[Franc28]

Actually, after looking at the legal side, and I am far from being a lawyer or anything like that, it seems to me that the most adequate description is "criminally negligent homicide."

Here is the definition in Tennessee:

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:

(1) that the defendant's conduct resulted in the death of the alleged victim;

and

(2) that the defendant acted with criminal negligence.

“Criminal negligence” means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

The requirement of criminal negligence is also established if it is shown that the defendant acted intentionally, knowingly or recklessly.

"Intentionally" means that a person acts intentionally when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to cause the death of the alleged victim.

"Knowingly" means that a person acts with an awareness that [his] [her] conduct is reasonably certain to cause the death of the alleged victim.

“Recklessly” means that a person acts recklessly when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint.

It is clear, given the nature of the transporter, that the action results in death and that operators ought to be aware of the substantial risks involved, which are of such a degree and nature that failure to perceive them constitutes a gross deviation over ordinary standards of care. After all, they know fully well, or should know, that they are destroying a person down to their most basic components, and then uses those components to put together a new person. That is the most basic description of what the transporter does.

[Ritterin Sophia]

The issue would appear to be about whether transporters kill at all. If they do, using one by choice would be a form of suicide. There have been examples of people being transported agaist their wishes and/or without warning, which would be murder.

Again, murder is an unlawful killing and who says suicide is always immoral? Is it even suicide or murder if you're alive at the end of it?

[Hamstray]

Again, murder is an unlawful killing and who says suicide is always immoral? Is it even suicide or murder if you're alive at the end of it?

Tricking someone into committing suicide, as in convincing them transporters are perfectly safe when they are actually not, can be considered murder though in case it's a known fact and negligent homicide otherwise.
However in a just law system, where there is no evidence of a crime no persecution is possible.