Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 1: The Increasing Population

Introduction

 

This is the first part of an intended series of posts addressing alleged problems with the concept of reincarnation. Perhaps
I should state my own position at the outset.  It is that I think it is
very likely that reincarnation occurs. Why do I think this?  First of all, and most importantly, because
of the evidence and the fact that it is very difficult to dream up
alternative hypotheses to explain this evidence.  And, secondly, because I
do not find the objections to reincarnation, and more generally an
afterlife, convincing.  In regards to the latter, see this post of mine.

I shall refer to the environment we find ourselves in-between lives as the otherworldly realm.  But it shouldn't be imagined that this necessarily refers to, or consists of, simply one place or one type of environment.  Indeed, it may consist of many different realms or realities, possibly of radically differing natures. Regardless, when I employ the phrase otherworldly realm, I simply mean any environment that we happen to inhabit before or after our present lives on Earth.

So, what is this evidence? I recommend people read this excellent summary in the form of young children recollecting previous lives.  It is written by a certain Jesse Bering, an associate professor in science communication at the University of Otago who is himself sceptical that reincarnation occurs and indeed sceptical that there is any type of afterlife at all. 

Incidentally, it is only the critiques of the spontaneous memories of apparent previous lives that I will be considering in this series of posts.  I will not be addressing the critiques of reincarnation based on alleged
memories of past lives elicited from hypnotic regression.  Memories elicited from hypnotic regression are far less reliable, and indeed, there has been far less
success in corroborating such alleged memories.  

The Population Problem

Currently, the world's population is around 7.9 billion*. In the year 2000, it was 6.1 billion.  In 1900 it was 1.6 billion.  In 1500 it was 450 million (0.45 billion).  In 5,000 BCE (7 thousand years ago) it was 5 million (0.005 billion)*. Many people claim that such dramatic population growth is incompatible with the idea of reincarnation.  

Unfortunately, people generally tend to be unforthcoming as to why they think there is an incompatibility here, but I think there's a number of assumptions they're making.  Let's list them:

1. All the souls that exist are currently alive on Earth.  This suggests no souls are currently dwelling in any otherworldly realm.
2. Everyone reincarnates. 
3. No souls are ever created nor destroyed.  Hence, the total number of souls is fixed at a specific number throughout time.  
4. There is no inter-species reincarnation.  
5. There are no other planets or parallel Earths or anywhere else where we can reincarnate.
6. We can only reincarnate sequentially in time.  Hence when I die -- say in 2051 or whenever -- my next life will commence at or after this time.  I cannot have my next life, say, commencing from 470 BCE.
7. Souls can't merge into each other so that hitherto different souls now occupy the same body.  Nor can the same soul occupy more than one body.

The late philosopher, Paul Edwards, in his book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination held that should reincarnation occur all these assumptions are reasonable.  Indeed, he held that to deny any of them would themselves be assumptions and "noxious ad-hoc assumptions" at that.  Thus, to deny that people reincarnate straight away, and instead hold that they dwell in some otherworldly realm in-between lives, constitutes a noxious ad-hoc assumption. So he thinks the basic default reincarnation position would be to accept all of the seven above.  Contrariwise, the failure to do so is simply a desperate attempt from those who subscribe to reincarnation to try and circumvent the growing population problem.

All the souls that exist are currently alive on Earth?

I do actually find 3 through to 7 plausible.  Moreover, as I hope to make clear, accepting 3 through to 7 doesn't pose any difficulty for reincarnation in any case. So I won't be contesting them (I might
or might not explain why I find 3 through to 7 plausible in subsequent blog posts in this series).  However, accepting 3 through to 7 does mean we need to reject 1, but I shall shortly argue we have excellent reasons for doing so. I shall also argue we can accept 2 without it constituting a problem for reincarnation.  But if we were to reject 2, this then allows no upper limit to the total number of souls that might exist. 

Those familiar with the evidence for reincarnation will know that the evidence doesn't bear out "1".  That is, most of us do not immediately reincarnate.  There can be months, years, decades and even centuries between lives*.  Moreover, around 20% of those that can recollect a previous life also recollect the time between lives*.  Of course, sceptics do not find such evidence compelling, but it's not as if people are simply making an assumption here, noxious or otherwise.  They are letting the evidence guide their beliefs. 

 
There are other aspects to this we should bear in mind, though.  For the sake of argument, what if prior to any research we all agreed that reincarnation, should it happen, should occur immediately after death?  Given that the evidence contradicts this expectation, this would then give us some reason to doubt the evidence.  Contrariwise, if our prior expectations are that we would spend time in some otherworldly realm in-between lives, and since the evidence implies that we do, then clearly this gives us greater confidence in the evidence than we would otherwise have.

However, Paul Edwards failed to advance any reasons why, from an a priori perspective, we should think reincarnation would work the way he thinks it should. My suspicion is that he is simply averse to the existence of an otherworldly realm.  But, regardless of whether we feel such aversion or not, it is my position that we should indeed expect to dwell in some otherworldly realm in-between lives.

To understand why I think this we need to bear in mind none of us can simply reincarnate forevermore, at least not on this planet.  Human beings, at least in their present form, have only been around 200,000 years or so and they will become extinct sometime in the future.  So if reincarnation occurs there will, for all of us, be a first life and a last life. Might our souls be created with the onset of our first lives, and destroyed at the end of our last life?  That would contravene "3" above that no souls are ever created nor destroyed.  But if we, for the sake of argument, accept that souls can be created, then why can't they be created on a continual basis? This would then mean that an ever-increasing population might then be a result of the continuous creation of souls. 

So, in order to subscribe to "1" and for it to create a problem for reincarnation, sceptics would need to suppose souls are not created at the onset of their first life.  Rather, souls would need to originate from some otherworldly realm at the onset of their first life and return there after their last life but never enter this realm in between lives.  I certainly concur with the notion that souls inhabit an otherworldly realm both before their first life and after their last life.  But I don't see how the belief that we would never enter such an otherworldly realm in-between lives could be justified.  If such a realm exists, why wouldn't we be able to enter into it in-between lives?   

Hence, even from a philosophical perspective, it seems to me that the idea that we all simply reincarnate straight away is implausible.  Moreover, the evidence vindicates this conclusion.  And it's not just all the research into reincarnation that tells us most people do not reincarnate straight away.  There is other evidence too.  For example, near-death experiences and mediumship communications that intimate an otherworldly realm that people enter into after death. 

I conclude that both from a philosophical perspective, and in terms of the evidence, "1" is untenable.

So is an increasing population a problem for reincarnation?

Does the population argument still have force?  Let's take a look.

Let T = the total number of souls that exist.  We're assuming this is a constant and of course cannot be less than 7.9 billion, the current population of the Earth.

Let E = the souls currently on Earth

Let A = the souls currently inhabiting the otherworldly realm.

So T = E + A.

Hence the population living on Earth can increase so as long as it's matched by a corresponding decrease in the population in the otherworldly realm.  Is this problematic?  It's very difficult to say since we have no idea of the value of T!
 

One possibility is that T -- the total number of souls -- is hugely large, perhaps a trillion.or more.  However, since it has been estimated that only roughly 117 billion people have ever lived*, this not only means that most souls have not been reincarnated (contravening "2"), it also means that most souls have never lived any lives on Earth whatsoever!  But why would this necessarily be problematic?  Why can't there exist trillions of souls with only a very small subset of these ever living on Earth who regularly reincarnate?   The rest perhaps subsist in differing areas in the otherworldly realm who may not even have any knowledge of Earth. 

Another possibility is that the total number of souls (T) might be much smaller, but as the population of the Earth increases, they spend less and less time in-between lives.  Such a possibility is argued for in the following paper Can Population Growth Rule Out Reincarnation? A Model of Circular Migration.  

As the author concludes, a reincarnation model where T is relatively low and adheres to 2 through to 7 above, can be reconciled to the historical facts of human population growth if we suppose the average time in between lives continually decreases as the population rises.  But is it plausible that thousands of years ago the time between lives was, on average, vastly longer?  Perhaps this might not seem so implausible if we bear in mind that, prior to human beings evolving, none of us ever had any lives at all on Earth.  Presumably, we simply subsisted in the otherworldly realm, then with the appearance of human beings, we initially on rare occasions get born on the Earth.  As time progresses, and the population increases, we become incarnated more and more frequently.  Again, is this plausible?

One factor that will surely strongly influence how rapidly we will be able to reincarnate is the availability of fetuses that souls can "inhabit". With a rapidly increasing population, there will be more readily available fetuses.  Hence, given that at least some people desire to be reincarnated and their desire has some causal influence, then one might expect, on average, that with an increasing population, people will more rapidly reincarnate.  It is interesting to note in this context that research reveals that the median time
between lives varies between differing cultures.  Indeed, while the
median average across all cases investigated worldwide is just 15
months in-between lives, in the West the median time is
something in the order of 35 years!*  This is an astonishing difference and I imagine many factors account for this.  But might one of those factors be the fact the West isn't undergoing rapid population growth?

Conclusion

I think we can conclude that the growth in population doesn't pose any difficulty for the notion that we reincarnate, at least not in any obvious way.  Indeed, we can even accept reincarnation occurs and, at the same time, accept 2 through to 7 above.  However, accepting 2 through to 7 imposes a constraint on the total number of souls that can exist. 

But it is also conceivable that the total number of souls is extremely large, most of whom have never had any lives on Earth (hence rejecting 2).  This, in turn, might suggest that reality -- and I'm not just thinking of our material reality here, but rather the whole of reality -- is vastly greater in scope than we can possibly imagine.  I have no idea whether this might be the case or not, one can only speculate.

Reincarnation and its Critics, Part 2: Reincarnation isn't Falsifiable

Energy bill

I left the energy supplier Pure Planet in late August, and went to the energy supplier Utility Point.  It was £800 at pure planet for all of my energy (both electricity and gas) but that was due to go up to £960 at Utility Point.  A steep price increase of 960/800 = 1.2 or 20% increase, but energy prices have soared in the past year and that can't be helped.

However, utility point have just gone bust (I'd signed up for 12 months fixed price for a year about five weeks ago).  So, that plan is no longer valid and I have to make a new plan with a new supplier.  I've just calculated what my total cost would be if I switched today.  Sainsburys energy supplier is the cheapest, and would have an annual cost of £1207!  That's a 51% increase.  £406 extra a year, £33.84 extra a calendar month, £7.81 extra a week!

But it doesn't end there.  I can't switch today; apparently when energy companies go bust you shouldn't do anything yourself as they switch for you .  This is a process that takes many weeks.  And they specifically say don't switch yourself as it causes confusion in the system. So I have to wait for weeks, and energy prices keep rising continually at the moment, especially gas.  And it gets even worse.  The higher prices will also increase food prices.  So, how much extra is it finally going to cost me??  Goddess knows.

This is a nightmare.  Although it's not only affecting me of course.  But poor people will be seriously struggling.  In fact, with National Insurance rises and the Universal credit uplift ending (£20 a week being taken off 6 million people in the UK), many poor people won't know what's hit them.  It's going to be chaos.

Edited to add 3.51pm:  Scratch all that.  There's been another huge price increase in the past 3 hours since I typed the above.  Sainsburys was £1207 for me for a year.  In the past 3 hours it's increased to £1,462.29 per year.  Yet another increase per annum of £254.95 in the past 3 hours since posting the above!

I've also received an email saying I've been switched to EDF.  Cannot find out the tariff, even when speaking to customer services.  But their tariff was £1400 for a 3 year fix.  79% higher than last year so wanted to switch but was told it might cause confusion.  I dithered and now energy has undergone another huge hike. 

Futile arguments on the net

 I actually often feel precisely this.

 

Ensnared in this life

We don't know our true selves because we're ensnared in this life with other peoples' conceptions of what we are, and our role in the world. We need to cease being actors and look within.

Always more downvotes than upvotes

I've noticed something rather curious; namely I always appear to get more downvotes than upvotes.  This is the case whether we're talking about my comments in the mail newspaper, my Amazon reviews (although we're unable to downvote now on Amazon), and I've just discovered today even on my youtube videos of me playing space invaders and Far Cry 3!

OK, with the mail, with my controversial views, I might expect more downvotes than upvotes as a total across all my comments, although I was unable to find anyone else where their downvotes exceed their upvotes. 

Amazon reviews are more puzzling.  But, I think on average, people tend to be more gushing in their reviews than I am, and they write shorter ones on average too.  People might tend to prefer positive reviews of products if they are looking to purchase something.

But computer games??  Here's me playing the original space invaders, and space invaders pt 2.  A total of 2 upvotes and 4 downvotes for both videos.  I had a look at a few other space invader videos played by other people, perhaps 15 or so.  There were a couple that attracted 0 votes, but none where the total of downvotes exceeded that of the upvotes.

Quite curious at this point I looked at one other video I've uploaded, a short video of me playing Farcry 3.  0 upvotes and 2 downvotes . .er . .  colour me baffled.  Why would someone click on a video of me playing space invaders or Far Cry 3 and downvote it?   

I feel this kinship with Novak Djokovic​. Neither of us are destined to be popular with the masses!

Facebook vs Twitter

I have approximately 300 friends on facebook and 248 followers on twitter. 86% of my posts (tweets) on twitter on my wall (or whatever it's called on twitter) attract neither likes, comments nor shares. This figure is only 50% for facebook. So I've concluded I'm wasting my time putting my thoughts on twitter, so I'm jacking it in. Also, I find the 280 character limit on there infuriating.

Anyway, even the 50% of my posts completely ignored on facebook seems to be pretty bad compared to the number of likes and comments other people get (and it's always the same ~10 people out of my 300 friends that ever react or comment). A lot of my comments on there I duplicate in this blog. Probably my comments are too long for peoples attention span? Even this post here that I also put on facebook only attracted just the one like and zero comments. Got to confess I was quite surprised!

On this note I found this article interesting. It says:

Someone
introduces a controversial subject and people begin to choose the anger
reaction button, which is worth five points each time it is used. The
[meaningful social interactions metric] is rising and more users see this in their News Feed.

I think you have to either say stuff like "jus' been drinking", or post something controversial without any attempt at balance in order to attract comments and reactions. But I don't like to do that, I like to adopt a measured approach.  But that will be bad for getting my posts promoted up peoples newsfeeds!

By 2404

I really have no idea what the future might be like in, say, 400 years time or so. What will the world be like in 2404? What will have happened to the climate? They'll have been mass migration from the hot areas of the world to Europe by then since these hot areas might be too hot for human beings to exist. People will start living in Antarctica.

What will technology be like? Probably we will have a shared virtual reality pretty much indistinguishable from real life. We'll have robots that maybe look like us, but they still don't fool people for any appreciable length of time as there's something off, weird, unconvincing about them.

And will people still subscribe to philosophical materialism? Next 100 years the mainstream view might be some type of materialism, but not by 2404.

Did I say I really have no idea? I just meant to say that and nothing else! But then I started thinking.

Chatting about other people

I've heard it claim that two-thirds of human conversation is gossip about other people. Surely not?? Anyway, I scarcely ever talk about other people. It's just not something that interests me. I'm extremely bad even by male standards. 

This is problematic because it's how many people bond. They don't like talking about intellectual stuff, they like talking about whatshecalled been up to. "She did what?? Ooh, well I never!" Well, at least some women talk like that, if not men!

Anyway, more seriously, as I said it helps to bond people together . People like to share their experiences of others, especially negative experiences. They want sympathy, they want to express how they feel about others. I think it's disadvantageous having little interest in such stuff. Oh well, I've always been different.

Newton and a smartphone

Imagine if you went back in time to 1770 and showed Isaac Newton a modern smartphone (obviously can't make calls, but the camera, torch, chess programs etc would work). Would he think it was magical, produced by witchcraft or whatever? Or would he understand that the regularities (physical laws) describing reality are much more intricate than he might have supposed. Regularities that can be utilized to produce such a wonderous device?

I think the latter.