View Single Post
Old 19th February 2008, 11:54 AM   #29
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
At first we must ask whether the premises of panpsychistic evolution are logically consistent. Apriori there is no reason to assume that panpsychism and reincarnation are worse as a foundation of a scientific theory than reductionist materialism, at least if we accept an epistemology similar to the one of Occam or Einstein. And some of the most influential thinkers of the past were panpsychists.

As long as we do not detect logical contradictions, we must take panpsychism as seriously as reductionist materialism. So we have these two alternatives:
  1. Darwinian evolution --> Malthusianism --> predictions of standard demography
  2. Panpsychistic evolution--> demographic saturation --> demographic predictions
And every halfway intelligent and honest person must admit that the predictions of demographic saturation agree much better with the facts than the predictions of standard demography do ("With respect to actual fertility, for decades population forecasters have assumed that it would not fall below replacement only to find that already more than half of the world's population today is below replacement (LUSKTE)". I predicted extremely low fertilty before the fact, because it is a simple logical consequence of a saturated population pyramid with many persons in fertile ages, few persons in the old ages and low mortality in general. Imagine, total fertilty rate fell to 0.41 children per woman in the Xiangyang district of Jiamusi city in China, which is only 20% of the generation-replacement fertilty of 2.1! However, I suppose that the number of births is not far away from the number of deaths and that the population in this district remains rather constant (without migration).

I wrote in 1999: "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."

If the current world population actually is already around 6.7 billion, then the upper limit is rather 7.5 than 7 billion. Yet there is a big uncertainty in population figures. A good example is Bhutan:
"The Royal Government of Bhutan lists their country's population as 752,700 (2003). The CIA Factbook estimates the population at 2,327,849. What accounts for this discrepancy? One explanation given inside Bhutan is that the higher CIA numbers ultimately trace back to an inflated population number the Bhutanese government supplied to the United Nations in the early 1970s in order to gain entry into that body (the UN reportedly had a cutoff population of one million at that time -- see micronation for justifications in support of such a minimum). According to this theory the CIA population experts have retained this original inflated number year after year while adjusting it each year for normal population growth." (Wikipedia)
And what about 'demographic smoothing' transforming "Figure 1, Population of India, 2001 Census, Unsmoothed" into "Figure 2, Population of India, 2001 Census, Smoothed" in The Future Population of India?

In the light of
"An indicator of near saturation of a population is a decline in birth number despite an increase in women in reproductive age."
the difference between Figure 2 and Figure 1 is quite fundamental. Are there actually plausible facts making reasonable such a big transformation of 'unsmoothed' data?

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top