Skip to main content

A Question on Reincarnation

Does reincarnation maintain the number of organisms living in the world?

Suppose there is a world where there are only three living organisms, and they are reincarnated when they die. What happens when one is about to die? If the remaining two reproduce sexually, will they forced to procreate as the third one dies, thereby maintaining the number of organisms in that world?
What if two individuals die at once? Would single celled organisms naturally evolve out of protein?

Perhaps the number of living organisms and souls is not strictly maintained. This would explain the exponential growth and decay of populations. But if everything is reincarnated, how would this be possible? Where would new life come from?

Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 12, 2017 at 5:42 PM

    How high is you

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2017 at 6:33 PM

    "Suppose there is a world where there are only three living organisms, and they are reincarnated when they die."
    To "Imagine a world with only 3 living orgs that reincarnate when they die"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 8:58 AM

    Watch 도깨비. It explains everything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 9:00 AM

    Just kidding. If 2 out of the 3 organisms die at once, the remaining will not evolve from proteins into a single celled organism. That third remaining one, in nature, will favor asexual reproduction.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 9:02 AM

    Just kidding again. What if the body is created first before the soul enters? Shouldn't that give some time leeway for the whole process of the body dying, the lost soul, and a body for that soul...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 9:02 AM

    Just kidding again and again. This is why I don't believe in reincarnation. :) Me, myself, and I. LOL. Okay. Yeah, I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 11:33 AM

    Oh... P.S. protein. but it's.. NP. ;)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which  rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...
3 comments
Read more

Compulsory Organ Donations

More than a Nudge Robert Thaler, the soon to be winner of this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote about how organ donation rates can change significantly when the question is asked differently to potential donors . In a nutshell, he differentiates the opt-in and the opt-out method, where the opt-out method gets more people to become donors, because the default choice is to be a donor. But he goes on to mention that the presumed-content law may be upsetting to some people, and that the Illinois system, which "makes one's wishes to be a donor legally binding . . . is a winning combination." Here, Thaler, in his strict adherence to libertarian paternalism, fails to consider a morally and economically superior policy: the policy of mandatory donations. It is not hard to see that mandatory donations are economically superior. To see why mandatory donations are morally superior, one need only consider the trolley problem. Here is the thought exp...
Post a Comment
Read more

Taxi Incentives

Whether they show it or not, most passengers are suspicious of taxis. This is because there is a conflict of interest: needlessly roundabout routes drive up the taxi's profits, while they cost passengers time and money. Is there a way to line up the incentives of drivers and passengers? The solution is to pay taxis before the ride, not after. The cost would be based on the distance and the traffic situation. This pre-paid method would be better than the current after-pay method for three reasons. First, it would be in the best interest of drivers to take the passenger to his or her destination as soon as possible so that they can quickly find a new customer. Second, because the passenger knows this fact, there would be fewer arguments about the route the drivers take. A driver's mistake in taking a slower path could be mildly annoying for the passenger, but not irritating enough to incite major arguments. Passengers would also trust the drivers more when they claim t...
Post a Comment
Read more