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

Rationally Gifting

Mainstream economists have argued that because people know their own preferences, gift giving is irrational. Behavioral economists have countered by claiming that gift exchanges can strengthen social bonds as well as make both members of the exchange feel better than they would have, had they purchased items on their own. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler added to this argument stating that because people mentally divide their budget up into categories, such as 10% for clothing, a nice shirt that exceeds that mental budget is of immense utility. Behavioral economists give quite convincing arguments. But would there be reasons for exchanging gifts even if everyone was perfectly rational? There would be if information was incomplete. Specialization makes gift giving rational. Because it is impossible to know about every market in expert detail, people often make choices that are suboptimal. When a sommelier gives a bottle of wine, the receiver is not only given a gift; he is given pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Getting Economists to Vote

The Freakonomics guys summed it up well: "... voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your 'civic duty.' As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, 'A rational individual should abstain from voting.'" -excerpt from a New York Times article This is unsettling, because many people consider the economic policies of candidates to be of the utmost importance. (According to the Chosun Ilbo article written on May 4th, 2017, polls revealed that economic growth policy was the most important factor of the 2017 Korean elections, at a rate of 28.5%. Policies regarding job creation came in second place, at 18.8%.) What to do, when the people who allegedly know the most about the economy take no part in shaping it? Surely, this major problem is difficult to remove without hurting democracy. Perhaps, then, hurting democracy is the best way to solve thi...
1 comment
Read more