Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

The predictive power of The Psychon Theory is much stronger than the predictive power of Darwinism. The reason is simple: the number of psychons having evolved on earth is limited. And isn't it obvious that the claim that only around 7 or 7.5 billion human souls have evolved is a falsifiable prediction? If the current demographic projections of UN come true, then my theory is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by jsfisher

From where in your psychon hypothesis does the 7-7.5 billion number come from? It sure looks like you simply pulled a number out of the air that was a little bigger than the current world population. As such, that does not qualify as a falsifiable prediction of your psychon hypothesis.

When in 1988 I took for the first time reincarnation seriously as a possible scientific hypothesis, demography seemed to me a strong counteragument. In the meanwhile, the demographic evolution of mankind has become the most obvious evidence in favor of reincarnation.

As a first guess I wrote 1996 in The Psychon Theory:

The number of human souls is in the order of 10 to the power 10.

After having dealt intensively with demography I wrote in The Demographic Saturation Theory:

If one knows the respective saturation values for all regions of the world, it is possible to calculate the limit, up to which world population can grow (in the short and medium term). The saturation values can be estimated by considering population pyramids and other demographic data in comparison with the data of yet saturated populations. If the calculations resulted in a saturation value of 77% for the 1997 world population, it would follow a maximum number of 7.5 billion humans.

Then The 1998 Revision of the United Nations Population Projections was published and I wrote:

The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there must be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the latest demographic data could be even less than 7 billion.

Now I think that a number of around 7 or 7.5 billion is correct.

Europe, North America, Australia, Japan and most other developed regions of East Asia are essentially saturated, i.e. their population cannot grow further from within. So any relevant increase in North America or Australia will be compensated by a smaller increase (e.g. South America) or a decrease (e.g. Eastern Europe) elsewhere.

Fertility decline has spread all over the world in the meanwhile. Everywhere happens the same, only the ad-hoc-explanations are different. Look at the U.S. Census Bureau population pyramid of Hong Kong. The demographic situation in the more developed regions of China (e.g. Shanghai, Beijing) is quite similar to Hong Kong.

"The lowest TotalFertilityRate recorded anywhere in the world in recorded history is for Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city (Heilongjiang, China) which had a TFR of 0.41." (Wikipedia)

Such extremely low fertiltiy rates are not the result of an increasing aversion against children, but of low fecundability due to fast population growth in the past. The past increase has led to a situation of demographic saturation where a big number of persons in fertile age is confronted with low mortality. The same will happen to all other fast growing countries or sub-populations.

"At one point in the 1980s estimates showed that Iran's population would reach 108 million by the year 2006. But, in fact, through a variety of measures, Iran has managed to check its population growth with the population projected to only be 70 million in 2006." (Wikipedia)

In any case, for the big demographic institutions (e.g. CIA, US Census, UN) it would be easily possible to make correct and detailed demographic predictions. But human nature is such that they very probably will continue to make completely wrong predictions instead of accepting a Copernican reversal.

Cheers, Wolfgang

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

[Complexity]

Ah, a published woo - that changes everything.

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by wogoga

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

and it is simply naive to make extravagant claims, play with a stacked deck full of untestable non-hypotheses, and expect applause.

i like my naive better than yours, sorry.

[krelnik]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Fertility decline has spread all over the world in the meanwhile. Everywhere happens the same, only the ad-hoc-explanations are different.

You say "ad-hoc", but these explanations are often based on detailed surveys of the populations in question. How do you explain that people say they don't want to have children, or are choosing not to have children for various external reasons (tax incentives, government regulation, etc)?

Quote:

Such extremely low fertiltiy rates are not the result of an increasing aversion against children, but of low fecundability due to fast population growth in the past.

On what do you base this conclusion? Can you show evidence that there is low fecundability in saturated populations?

So far all I see is you pointing out that some populations are slowing to zero population growth. You are not backing this up with any evidence that there is large-scale lack of fecundability within these populations, which your theory would predict.

[wollery]

Don't even attempt to explain away China's drop in birth rate with your psychon babble. China has had a policy in force for some time now limiting the number of children their citizens are allowed to have. The allowance is one child per family, except in the countryside (two are permitted if the first is a girl) and two or more for minority groups, the exact number depending on the size of the minority group. The penalties for breaking these limits can be quite severe, ranging from substantial fines (or repossession of farmland, which is economic death to a poor farmer) to forcible sterilization. This policy was enacted because of the large and rapid population growth which occurred after WWII and the communist revolution.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by wollery

Wow, that leaves about 5.993 billion people without souls, or 99.9% of the world's population.

Now that's what I call a soulless world!

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by wogoga

It is simply naive to mock a scientific hypothesis only because it does not agree with one's own prejudices

It is ridiculous to label woo as a scientific hypothesis simply because it endorses one's own visions

Wolfgang, your visions are at odds with observable, testable reality

You are NOT using the scientific method

Please stop pretending that you are

The Scientific Method
by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D.

Quote:

A common misperception of science is that science defines "truth." Science does not define truth; rather, it defines a way of thought. It is a process in which experiments are used to answer questions. This process is called the scientific method and involves several steps:

1. Observation:
   The first step of the scientific method takes place when an observation is made regarding some event or characteristic of the world. This observation might lead to a question regarding the event or characteristic.
   <snip/>
   
2. Hypothesis:
   In attempting to answer the question, a scientist will form a hypothesis (or some would say a guess) regarding the question's answer.
   <snip/>
3. Experimentation:
   Of all the steps in the scientific method, the one that truly separates science from other disciplines is the process of experimentation. In order to prove, or disprove, a hypothesis, a scientist will design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
   <snip/>

Please note: there is no mention of 'using long-winded sentences overflowing with big words and self-referencing endorsements for a particular brand of woo' in any step of the scientific method

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

sounds more like a soul cluster-***k than a soulmate

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

[wollery]

Originally Posted by six7s

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

Swallowing it makes you go blind? But I thought it was.....

Oh, I see what you mean.

Sorry.

[Silentknight]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Wog, how do you discern between souled people and folks like SilentKnight and myself who have none?

You wear the special glasses, of course.

I resent that. I mean, come on! George W. Bush??


Anyway, I can't wait for wogoga to notice what I said in the migraines thread and attribute my chronic pain to the lack of a soul. Who needs all those unproven pseudo-scientific explanations, like dilated blood vessels, stress hormones, serotonin imbalance, or possible food triggers? Everyone knows that it all of the world's problems are caused by thetans-- I mean psychons, and the shortage of reborn souls, according to his book that was published in 1996 and is therefore correct.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by krelnik

People still have free will in your world view, do they not? A given couple's decision to reproduce should be unaffected by whether the country they live in is "saturated", correct?

If that is so, then there should be many unexplainable (by so-called "materialist" means) fertility problems in Japan. I.e. there should be a marked increase in couples who want to have children, but cannot for reasons that medical science seemingly cannot explain. Said increase should have occurred during the exact same period that Japan's population growth slowed.

Infertility is a problem in low-fertility countries, and at least a small part is "unexplained infertility". However, there are many properties or parameters involved in reproduction, and if one of these parameters is outside the norm, then such a case can be declared "explained infertility", despite the fact that it is actually caused by the inavailability of a (related) human soul.

Many families are founded because of a pregnancy. So a lower fecundability entails a higher proportion of singles. Also, the correlation between fertility and contraception is rather poor, and in many countries or populations, people would like to have more children than they actually have:

"Personal ideal family size tends to be markedly higher than actual fertility, but it seems to be on the decline in several European countries." (Lutz, Skirbekk & Testa)

A further quote from my Critical Analysis of Standard Demography:

Increasing demographic saturation leads directly to lower fecundability. At least under not too exceptional circumstances, this lower fecundability entails lower fertility, irrespective of other causes (e.g. at the individual choice-decision level), and actual fertility of a fully saturated population cannot significantly exceed direct-replacement fertility. Thus infertility of some couples is an unavoidable outcome, if more children are desired than direct-replacement fertility allows. A substantial number of couples does not seek infertility treatment, despite wishing for years for a first or a further child.

From the demographic saturation model we conclude:

• Fertility of e.g. Iran will fall below 1.5, and it is impossible to keep fertility above 1.5 (apart from decreasing life expectancy in Iran or huge mass mortality in the rest of the world).
• The countries the fertility of which never fell (and never will fall) below 1.5 had a rather continuous and long lasting fertility decline.
• The period of below-generation-replacement fertility (i.e. below 2.1) is in general the shorter, the faster fertility declines (and the lower fertility falls).
• From the population pyramid of Hong Kong we can conclude that fertility will again be higher than 2.1 around 20 years in the future.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by wogoga

Fertility of e.g. Iran will fall below 1.5, and it is impossible to keep fertility above 1.5 (apart from decreasing life expectancy in Iran or huge mass mortality in the rest of the world).
The countries the fertility of which never fell (and never will fall) below 1.5 had a rather continuous and long lasting fertility decline.
The period of below-generation-replacement fertility (i.e. below 2.1) is in general the shorter, the faster fertility declines (and the lower fertility falls).
From the population pyramid of Hong Kong we can conclude that fertility will again be higher than 2.1 around 20 years in the future.

Wogoga, you have ignored a rather important question I asked you:

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Define "species". Are the Japanese now a separate species?

You keep refering to the number of available human souls and keep going on about how souls are specific to species. However, all your "analysis" focuses on individual countries, and appears to consider them all completely separate. Which is it? Are there a certain number of human souls which can be used by any human, no matter where they are? Or are souls limited to a particular geographic location, race, or some other subset of the human species?

[quarky]

less apes=more humans.
If souls evolved, this would make (slightly) more sense.

[krelnik]

Originally Posted by wogoga

...there are many properties or parameters involved in reproduction, and if one of these parameters is outside the norm, then such a case can be declared "explained infertility", despite the fact that it is actually caused by the inavailability of a (related) human soul.

That's very convenient for you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this to mean that anything evidence at all, as long as it results in lower population growth, supports your theory. I'm sorry, but real science doesn't work that way. You don't get a free ride on unrelated trends.

So for instance, do you claim that China actually instituted its laws regarding number of children per family as a result of the lack of souls? Are you saying that Japanese couples don't want to have children, not because they are making careful choices based on economics and social trends, but because on some level they sense that they can't?

If you're going to take this path, then your theory is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science. It is a belief system.

Quote:

Also, the correlation between fertility and contraception is rather poor, and in many countries or populations, people would like to have more children than they actually have...

As I predicted, you are now confusing the issue of "fertility" (as demographers use it to mean the overall population growth rate) and "fecundability" which is the ability of a given couple (should they choose to) to become pregnant.

I asked you a simple question. Where are the numbers to support that fecundability dropped in Japan at the same time that "fertility" dropped? Your theory predicts this. If this did not occur, then your theory doesn't hold much water.

Quote:

A substantial number of couples does not seek infertility treatment, despite wishing for years for a first or a further child.

First of all, I don't for one minute believe the above. Where did you come up with this? Second, quoting your own writings in a thread on the same topic really doesn't add any weight to what you are saying. Third, in this and other quotes of yourself you are simply restating your hypothesis and conclusions, without actually supplying the underlying data that would support your theory.

I'm going to keep asking. Where is the data on fecundability that your theory predicts?

If this data doesn't reside in existing databases, why aren't you in Japan trying to gather it directly?

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by krelnik

...

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read this to mean that anything evidence at all, as long as it results in lower population growth, supports your theory."

My theory is only supported by a convergence of the birth numbers to the death numbers. Depending on population pyramid, this can also entail an increasing fertility. Please read the short chapter Direct-replacement versus generation-replacement fertility.

Already in 1994 (Fertility Decline in East Asia, Science, Vol. 266, page 1521) one could read:

"... and there is no obvious reason why families should adjust their behaviour to achieve long-term population replacement. It might be considered remarkable that total fertility in developed countries has remained as close to replacement level as it has."

"So for instance, do you claim that China actually instituted its laws regarding number of children per family as a result of the lack of souls?"

I simply do not believe that fertility rates far below one child per woman are the result of China's one-child policy. Look at Table 4 (Policy Fertility and Recorded Fertility of China's Provinces):

The provinces Jilin, Shandong and Jangxi all had (circa 2000) an policy fertility of around 1.45. Nevertheless actual fertility ranged from 1.0 in Jilin to 2.0 in Jiangxi.

"Are you saying that Japanese couples don't want to have children, not because they are making careful choices based on economics and social trends, but because on some level they sense that they can't?"

For me it's not necessary to explain the hypothesis "that Japanese couples don't want to have children". You start with the premise the every child is the result of a conscious decision. I do not. I'm sure that the majority of people do not exactly plan each child and that they do not choose to undergo infertility diagnosis if they would like to get a first, second or a third child but don't succeed.

"If you're going to take this path, then your theory is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Therefore it is not science. It is a belief system."

Demographic saturation predicts direct-replacement fertility, and actual fertility is converging to direct-replacement all over the world. A fertility of 1.3 in Japan or of around 0.7 in Shanghai and Beijing already is the prediction of my theory. So the problem is only on the side of standard demography which must explain such low and extremely low fertilities by "careful choices" or by infertility.

"As I predicted, you are now confusing the issue of 'fertility' (as demographers use it to mean the overall population growth rate) and 'fecundability' which is the ability of a given couple (should they choose to) to become pregnant."

I'm rather careful in distinguishing between 'fertility' and 'fecundability' (often called fecundity or even fertility).

"I asked you a simple question. Where are the numbers to support that fecundability dropped in Japan at the same time that 'fertility' dropped?"

I explain the current fertility in Japan by the obvious fact that the number of births is equal to the number of deaths. No other explanation is needed.

Have you any evidence showing that extremely low fertility is caused by individual choices or by 'materialist' infertility?

And how do you explain the fact that fertility has started to rise again in many European Countries, in the U.S. and in Japan?

Whereas substantial population decline (not caused by emigration) as predicted several times by standard demography woulrd refute the demographic saturation theory, a scenario being able to refute standard demography simply does not exist.

"I'm going to keep asking. Where is the data on fecundability that your theory predicts? If this data doesn't reside in existing databases, why aren't you in Japan trying to gather it directly?"

Let us find a sponsor. But a region in China where fertility is substantially below 1.0 would be more promising for that kind of research. In the meanwhile you can try an internet search with e.g. "infertility China", "unexplainded infertility" or similar.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[krelnik]

Originally Posted by wogoga

I explain the current fertility in Japan by the obvious fact that the number of births is equal to the number of deaths. No other explanation is needed.

You continue to use the terms "fertility" and "fecundability" interchangably with no distinction between them. You are not answering my question, and indeed you cannot answer my question if you are not going to be precise about your terminology.

Quote:

Have you any evidence showing that extremely low fertility is caused by individual choices or by 'materialist' infertility?

Yes, sociologists study the family planning decisions made by populations as a whole all the time. The actual causes can very from population to population depending on social mores, government regulation and so on, of course. It is a very common pattern that as a society becomes more developed and wealthy, population growth (or "fertility" in the demographic sense) will slow. There are no magical "psychons" needed to explain this, it is simply people making choices.

If you wish to discredit this as the actual underlying cause of zero population growth, you need to show your work. You can't just wave your hands and say its not the real cause. You need to prove it. That's how science works.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by six7s

Homoeopathic spirits?

900 times stronger than meths and without the purple haze... but you'll still lose your sight if you swallow it

I wonder how the $cientologists' body thetans play into all this? Are the body thetans trippin' on psychons?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by quarky

less apes=more humans.
If souls evolved, this would make (slightly) more sense.

Of course, this assume that such a thing as a "soul" even exists. To date, I have never seen any evidence for a soul. In fact, I recall that experiments designed specifically to detect a human soul came up with a null result...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_...l_%28doctor%29

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

But each one is sucked on by 10,000 Thetans (unless you have the revelation of OT VII -- where it gets even worse).

Edited to add: Sorry MattusMaximus, I did not read to the end of the thread before posting and you beat me to the Thetans. Although, obviously you have not reach OT VII as yet -- where the EVEN GREATER TRVTH
about Thetans is revealed.

[wollery]

Originally Posted by wogoga

I simply do not believe that fertility rates far below one child per woman are the result of China's one-child policy. Look at Table 4 (Policy Fertility and Recorded Fertility of China's Provinces):

The provinces Jilin, Shandong and Jangxi all had (circa 2000) an policy fertility of around 1.45. Nevertheless actual fertility ranged from 1.0 in Jilin to 2.0 in Jiangxi.

There are many reasons for differences in birth rates. But of course, that's pretty irrelevant, since you're cherry-picking results from that paper.

For instance, table 2 shows an increasing fertility rate, from 1.22 in 2000 to 1.44 in 2004. Figure 2 shows how the fertility rate has fallen since the introduction of the one child policy, but is still above 1. You're confusing total female population with total female population that can have children. These are very different things! Table 2 shows that the vast majority of women have children between the ages of 20 and 30. This is to be expected, since couples are eager to ensure that they can have their child, and the percent fertility rates for these age groups are above 100% every year with only one exception (2000, which was when the fertility rate bottomed out). Also, China's one child policy has lead to a population with an increasingly large proportion of elderly people, and women in their middle ages who have already filled their quota of children, so it is perfectly obvious that the fertility rates for women over 30 will be far lower. Either they are too old to have children, or are forbidden by the policy to have any more. Thus, saying that a fertility rate below 1 child per woman can't be due to the one child policy is naive to say the least.

The paper also points out that around 90 percent of the population fall under either the 1 child or 1.5 child policy rate (>1/3 for 1 child, >1/2 for 1.5 children), which means that the mean fertility rate should be (according to the policy) around 1.35. Yet in 2004 it was 1.44. This shows that there are women having more than their allotted number of children, and a higher national average fertility rate than the policy permits can hardly be said to be a decline in natural fertility!

ETA - It should also be noted that the policy is 1 child per married couple not 1 child per woman, and since not all women will get married, and having a child outside of marriage is almost unheard of in the vast majority of China you would expect the rate to actually be slightly lower that the policy dictates.

[bruto]

If Wogoga's hypothesis were true, wouldn't China's law be entirely unnecessary?

Perhaps it's a face-saving fiction, to cover up their embarrassing depletion of soul resources.

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by bruto

If Wogoga's hypothesis were true, wouldn't China's law be entirely unnecessary?

Perhaps it's a face-saving fiction, to cover up their embarrassing depletion of soul resources.

you have to be ****** kidding. don't you realize the crisis??? now that they've run out of souls they HAVE to shut down the breeding, lest they breed.... i dunno... soulless babies might turn out to be vampires or zombies or ex girlfriends of mine or something. DUH.

[wogoga]

Originally Posted by wogoga

I simply do not believe that fertility rates far below one child per woman are the result of China's one-child policy. Look at Table 4 (Policy Fertility and Recorded Fertility of China's Provinces):

The provinces Jilin, Shandong and Jangxi all had (circa 2000) an policy fertility of around 1.45. Nevertheless actual fertility ranged from 1.0 in Jilin to 2.0 in Jiangxi.

Originally Posted by wollery

...

"There are many reasons for differences in birth rates. But of course, that's pretty irrelevant, since you're cherry-picking results from that paper."

I only presented a good example from Table 4. If in two provinces the allowed fertility is almost identical (1.45 and 1.46), but in one province actual fertility is substantially lower (Jilin with 1.0) and in the other substantially higer (Jiangxi with 2.0), then we must conclude that fertility policy is not decisive. And it is not astonishing at all that in some provinces actual fertility is quite close to policy fertility. According to US Census actual fertility in 2000 was 0.94 in Hong Kong, 0.95 in Macao and an exceptional year-2000-value of 1.68 in Taiwan, which rapidly fell to 1.115 in 2005. If we calculated 'policy fertility' for these regions, they probably woudn't correlate worse with actual fertility than in the case of the provinces of mainland China.

"For instance, table 2 shows an increasing fertility rate, from 1.22 in 2000 to 1.44 in 2004."

A quote from the paper:

"Fertility is most commonly observed by total fertility rate (TFR). China’s measurement of its fertility once was claimed to be 'of very high quality' in the early 1980s (Coale, 1984), but turns to be a focus of debate over years, particularly since the mid-1990s. It was expected to have an answer to the debate with the results of the 2000 population census. Surprisingly, the 2000 census reports a fertility level only at 1.22.* This result has been widely considered 'unacceptable', and even for the National Statistics Bureau to see it as 'too low'. More debates arise on China’s fertility level in recent years, and the estimation ranges from as low as 1.35 to as high as 2.3 (see in Chen and Guo 2006).

* NSB (2003) later adjusted the 2000 total fertility rate to 1.4 according to the short form of the census."

So the apparent fertility increase from 1.22 to 1.44 in Table 2 results primarily from the use of different data sources for different years. But why was the result of the 2000 population census considered so "unacceptable" that the hypothesis that up to almost 50% of the newborn are hidden from the authorities became predominant? Probably one simply could not imagine that a fertilty policy actually works.

Yet the primary reason for this fertility decline is obviously something very different from a policy. As absurd as it may sound in the ears of many: Chinese fertility decline is the direct consequence of an increasing shortage of unborn chinese souls.

"You're confusing total female population with total female population that can have children."

It almost amuses me to see how everybody is desirous of thinking that I'm confused.

"Also, China's one child policy has lead to a population with an increasingly large proportion of elderly people, ..."

Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and other countries and regions are in the same situation without a one-child-policy.

But the policy actually could have a positive effect on childlessness: less parents with more than one child lead to more parents with at least one child.

Cheers, Wolfgang

[zeusbheld]

<<cue theremin music>>

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

But each one is sucked on by 10,000 Thetans (unless you have the revelation of OT VII -- where it gets even worse).

Edited to add: Sorry MattusMaximus, I did not read to the end of the thread before posting and you beat me to the Thetans. Although, obviously you have not reach OT VII as yet -- where the EVEN GREATER TRVTH
about Thetans is revealed.

Okay, is there something I'm missing with the whole thetan thing? I thought I already knew the whole crazy story a la "Trapped in the Closet" from South Park. Please share the even greater "TRVTH" - I'm ready to have my mind blown

[quarky]

Its bound to be freaking weird; the truth of the matter.

Woo isn't weird enough when it pretends to understand weird stuff...that's my beef.

(I miss the hundred foot tall bearded white god, with all his threats)

[bruto]

Originally Posted by wogoga

It almost amuses me to see how everybody is desirous of thinking that I'm confused.

Keep working at it. Somebody is bound to be amused before this is all over.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by bruto

Keep working at it. Somebody is bound to be amused before this is all over.

I'm amused. This is some of the most hilarious crap I've read in a long time... psychons... evolving souls...

[wollery]

Originally Posted by wogoga

As absurd as it may sound in the ears of many: Chinese fertility decline is the direct consequence of an increasing shortage of unborn chinese souls.

Related to this, but a little off topic, I have a question.

I was born in England, the son of an Austrian Ashkenazi Jew of Czech Jewish ancestry and an English Jew with part English and part Dutch Ashkenazi heritage, whilst my fiancé is Chinese, of the Han ethnicity. At some point in the future we plan to have children. Assuming that these children receive souls, what ethnicity/nationality of soul will they receive? English, Jewish, Austrian, Czech, Dutch, Han or Generic Chinese?

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by wollery

Related to this, but a little off topic, I have a question.

I was born in England, the son of an Austrian Ashkenazi Jew of Czech Jewish ancestry and an English Jew with part English and part Dutch Ashkenazi heritage, whilst my fiancé is Chinese, of the Han ethnicity. At some point in the future we plan to have children. Assuming that these children receive souls, what ethnicity/nationality of soul will they receive? English, Jewish, Austrian, Czech, Dutch, Han or Generic Chinese?

being an American of Polish/Slovak/English descent who is currently living in Thailand and dating a Thai girl of Han Chinese descent, i'd be curious too. are these mixes just so complex that we should avoid having children, for lack of availability of appropriate psychons? my future depends on the answer.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by wollery

Related to this, but a little off topic, I have a question.

I was born in England, the son of an Austrian Ashkenazi Jew of Czech Jewish ancestry and an English Jew with part English and part Dutch Ashkenazi heritage, whilst my fiancé is Chinese, of the Han ethnicity. At some point in the future we plan to have children. Assuming that these children receive souls, what ethnicity/nationality of soul will they receive? English, Jewish, Austrian, Czech, Dutch, Han or Generic Chinese?

My vote goes for Czech.I guess we!ve got more souls to offer!
(And I am biased,given czech soul...pure nice soul...)

[quarky]

holy cow!

is it possible Obama is souless?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Okay, is there something I'm missing with the whole thetan thing? I thought I already knew the whole crazy story a la "Trapped in the Closet" from South Park. Please share the even greater "TRVTH" - I'm ready to have my mind blown

Can't point to a reference right now but when you get to OT VII you learn that you are not just surrounded by Thetans, you are actually composed of them.

PS. I am prepared to find the reference if you insist but it will cost you $10,000 which I assure is much less than what the "church" will collect from you to acquire this insightful "knowledge".

[calebprime]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Apparently the world's population is now over 6.65 billion. I suppose this could bring a new meaning to the word "soulmate". Each soul is in fact spread between 900 people.

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Wogoga, you have ignored a rather important question I asked you:

Cuddles: Define "species". Are the Japanese now a separate species?


You keep refering to the number of available human souls and keep going on about how souls are specific to species. However, all your "analysis" focuses on individual countries, and appears to consider them all completely separate. Which is it? Are there a certain number of human souls which can be used by any human, no matter where they are? Or are souls limited to a particular geographic location, race, or some other subset of the human species?

Could you attempt to answer Cuddles' question?

Also, for me and other simpletons, could you answer (again, if you already have) how you explain that world population is increasing?

Do you really believe that people are being born without souls? If this is possible in your scheme, then how does reincarnation have any effect on population?

[zeusbheld]

Originally Posted by calebprime

Do you really believe that people are being born without souls?

i was born without soul. don't make me prove it by attempting to dance...

[calebprime]

That almost sounds like I believe in the existence of souls, but you get the idea.

I feel an urge to quote from Band of Gypsies, which I'm going to suppress.

[The Gnomon]

As the question of the exitence of a "soul" appears to be without falsifiability, the only valid determination of such existence must be within the experience of the individual her/himself.
No person can determine whether another has a soul. Some may have souls, and some not. The only defensible statement I can make is that I have no experience supporting the idea that I have a soul. I am "soul-negative."
You may be "soul-positive." I have no way of knowing. That's your determination, in which my participation has absolutely no role.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by calebprime

Could you attempt to answer Cuddles' question?

Also, for me and other simpletons, could you answer (again, if you already have) how you explain that world population is increasing?

Do you really believe that people are being born without souls? If this is possible in your scheme, then how does reincarnation have any effect on population?

greetings, calebprime.
I was thinking about you because of some weird music idea i was having.
Will you please start a new music thread?

back on topic;

It might be usefull to think of 'souls' as having a certain mass; and comprised of conglomeration.

two pigs gets a retard; 3 pigs equals an Einstien, etc.
no inherrent morality; no anthro-pomorphic chauvanism.

the smallest soul units would be bacterial; maybe viral; perhaps prion.

at any rate,

it would take several bucket-loads of bacterium to equal a human being.

(I hope we can agree on that)

[bruto]

I'm still confused about the localization of psychons. How do these psychons know what country to inhabit? Are they physical? Are they sentient in and of themselves? Some cults are of the opinion that souls choose their recipients. Are they right? If so, why can they not move from country to country as necessary? If that is so, wouldn't the soul distribution be unrelated to nationality or ethnicity? If not, how are they distributed, and what keeps them over land? Every once in a while someone is born at sea, and one suspects more than that are conceived at sea. Are these people without souls? If not, where did they get them? Or might there be a dense and untapped sea of souls over the oceans, waiting for roving mariner bands to tap into their reservoir? Is there money to be made, perhaps, in Japan-based cruises to allow infertile Japanese couples to harvest wild souls from the Pacific?