Comment on Trek Club

• Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I doubt it’s that big of a difference. If they have the tech to materialize full fledged humanoids regularly, millions of times a day, I’d think they’d also have the tech to make replicated food taste good.

  But sure, I can see it being marginally better. But not enough to mean money is still in use.

  It might be more of a “tomatoes I grew myself” type of thing for most cases.

  source

  • inverted_deflector@startrek.website ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I always saw the “real food is better” as either a hipster thing or simply that the recipe they prefer just doesnt exist in the database. In TNG we see people from the past try repilcated food and absolutely LOVE it.

    source
  • melmi@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is true, but also it’s implied in technobabble that replicators operate on a lower “molecular” resolution whereas transporters operate on a quantum scale. I rationalize this as a space saving measure; when you’re transporting living organisms, you need perfect precision, and thus a full pattern buffer worth of resolution. This is clearly expensive to store, so much so that it decays over time unless you do something tricky.

    Replicators use a lower resolution scan, as you can just reassemble protein molecules into the right shape most of the time. Eddington complains about this issue. (The non-canon TNG technical manual mentions tanks full of protein sludge used for replicators.) Now, is this actually detectable by a human palate? Eh, maybe.

    I imagine if you were to beam a plate of non-replicated food though, the full flavor profile wouldn’t be lost. It’s specifically the low resolution of the replicator tech.

    source

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I haven’t heard that take before, which is actually a decent workaround for the “why can’t we replicate living beings?” question.

      I doubt it would be detectable though. Because you’d have to be able to tell the difference between replicated molecules, and molecules that were transported, with only differences being individual atoms and subatomic particles. Neither of which I’d think somebody capable of discerning. Maybe it’s a bit if a placebo thing?

      Or maybe it would be a “pure water has no taste” sort of thing, where replicators make things too pure, to the point where some consider it bland. A real tomato grew in dirt and still has at least some, and the soil effects it’s taste, whereas the same isn’t true for replicated foods.

      There also may be some degree of intentionally making an excuse. Lots of people love gardening, and in a world with effectively infinite, free food, your hobby seems more valuable if you have an excuse that your home grown real food & liquor tastes better.

      source

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        They say it’s detectable all the time, though!

        This isn’t a random, one-off comment - in every series, it’s mentioned over and over again how much better non-replicated food is. And getting better/ upgraded food patterns, and so on and so forth.

        Hell, it even took Picard a while to get his tea made right.

        Now that said, it’s mostly a software issue, not a hardware issue.

        But it isn’t a placebo.

        source

        • -> View More Comments