Skip to main content

Has the spacing between generations lengthened in the Star Trek universe?


Reading this question I was struck by an underlying assumption present in some answers that generational length (~25 years) would remain about the same. But the thing is, that may not be the case. In our world, the best time (biologically speaking) for us to have children is fairly young, while the best time for us (psychologically and economically speaking) to have children is significantly older. Having children later increases likelihoods of various complications, genetic disorders, etc.


But in Star Trek, we have two fundamental differences in play. One is advancement of medical technology such that we can assume age of the parent is no longer a limiting factor. The other is economic changes which mean it is no longer more stable to have a child later in life. The limiting factors are therefore when you feel like having a child and what you want to do with your life, what sort of career and personal development you want to have before you have a child. Picard's brother, for example, is clearly a somewhat older gentleman but with a young son. On the other hand, his ambitions were relatively simple- he wanted to run the family vineyard.


So, obviously there are going to be those who want to be a parent early and often. But do we have any sort of commentary about time between generations lengthening in general in the Star Trek universe? Or, alternately, anything to show that the average generational length has remained more or less the same?




Answer




If we assume, as stated in the question, that a generation is 25 years (perhaps even 30 or so), we might see some evidence that generations have increased in length somewhat by the time of the 24th century.


One of the best examples of this is the O'Briens. We know Molly was born in 2368 (Source). We also know that Miles was 40 then (he was born in 2328 [Source]). We don't actually know how old Keiko is, but let's assume she's a similar age to Miles. So that's a 40-year gap right there. Another interesting aspect about Keiko that is brought up on Memory Alpha is the following:



It's also interesting to note that Keiko's mother was apparently around the age of 60 when she had Keiko (assuming Keiko was not much older than 40 in 2369).



(Source)


Considering the age of Miles, the assumption is quite reasonable. Now, it would be quite unusual by today's standards for a woman to give birth at the age of 60. That's a 60 year gap in the generations there.


The only other major character with a child I can think of off the top of my head is Dr Crusher. Now, she was born in 2324 (Source), whilst Wesley was born in 2348 (Source). This makes Beverly 24 when she had Wesley, which fits in with current ideas of what a generation is.



The other important factor to take into consideration is average lifespan. In the 22nd century, 100 years was the expected lifespan (Source). It's not so farfetched so expect that by the 24th century this might have increased a bit (we see Bones aged 137 in 'Encounter at Farpoint Pt 2').


So, in light of all this, I would conclude that perhaps, the 'age' of a generation has increased somewhat by the 24th century. As people are living longer, the age they can no longer biologically have offspring becomes older, allowing for a given generation to be longer.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF

Could one of Voldemort's Death Eaters have killed or harmed Harry at Privet Drive?

In Order of the Phoenix , Dumbledore explains to Harry the protection that the Dursleys' home provides: While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years. Dumbledore says that he cannot be "touched or harmed by Voldemort". Does this mean that he could have sent a Death Eater to just bust down the door and kill Harry, assuming that Voldemort would allow them to? And even if he didn't want them to kill him, could they have harmed him in some other way (e.g. the Cruciatus Curse)? Answer No. Harry was protect...