The purpose of this article is to use Fisher’s calculations relating to the spread of beneficial mutations to show that the Scientology cult is headed for self-destruction. Fisher’s views on genetics are presented in his book, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, published by Clarendon Press in 1930 (Fisher was a famous British mathematician who also was one of the two founders of modern mathematical statistics; the other founder was a famous Russian mathematician, Kolmogorov).
Unfortunately, Fisher’s book is not among the Google books. I provided a link to another Google book that gives a very good overview of Fisher’s works.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TLtsP3 ... ht&f=false

One might ask this question -- what Fisher’s calculations of the spread of a mutation have to do with CoS expansion-shrinkage? But it is common practice for some sciences to use mathematical apparatus developed in unrelated sciences to draw valid conclusions. For example, a huge chunk of control systems theory is used in construction of economic models. As a stock market analyst, I occasionally use the ARMA model, which was initially intended for adaptive control of electromechanical devices, to predict short-term price changes of a particular stock. There is plenty of example like this one, but I do not want to burden the reader with nonessential details.
Fisher’s calculations show that a random mutation that started in a single member of species cannot spread to the entire species population, it becomes practically undetectable after the passage of 15 generations (Fisher was an evolutionist who believed in another version of the evolutionary theory, which is one of the varieties of the theory of nonrandom mutations). Fisher’s calculations and conclusions could be found in the aforementioned book.
The spread of the Scientology “doctrine” is mathematically equivalent to the spread of a single mutation with Hubbard being a single mutated organism which transmitted his mutation to the mankind in random fashion.
The word “random” in this context requires further explanation. Here it means that CoS do not follow any particular recruitment scheme, they choose potential Scientologists at random, without applying any particular selection criteria (they try to sell the Dianetics book to everyone, which is their recruitment tool).
What a certain selection criteria would look like? Suppose, cult XYZ choose its recruits among the people with high school diploma only (this is a highly improbable selection criterion, I use it for the purpose of illustration only). Then Fisher’s calculations are not applicable to XYZ. This does not mean that XYZ will survive, it simply means that the calculations based on a theory of nonrandom selection procedure are needed to predict its future.
In some cases CoS use a well-defined recruitment criterion, such as targeting of celebrities, to increase their membership. But the number of Scientology celebrities is less that 1% of the total membership, so this recruiting technique has an infinitesimal effect on the cult’s fate.
Fisher’s end formula could be used directly to predict how long would it take for Scientology to go into oblivion. But it requires the knowledge of two parameters, the current number of active Scientologists and the CoS attrition rate, which are not available. As an alternative, one might consider a quantitative analysis of Scientology data.
Fisher’s formula predicts that initially there will be increase in the number of mutated organisms, which will reach its maximum at some time, and then a steady decline without recovery will follow. This prediction concurs with the CoS growth-decline -- at first the number of Scientologists was on the rise until it reached the maximum during so-called St. Hill years, then the final stage of decline begun.
OTHER CILTS AND RELIGIONS.
One might ask this question -- if the Fisher theory is correct, why, for example, Christianity did not go into extinction?
Jesus was using a procedure of nonrandom selection by propagating his religion among the poor people. It appears he was not interested in recruitment of the rich folk. I read the Bible only once, but I remember that he said that it is practically impossible for a rich person to go to Heaven (I do not remember his exact words).
Judaism was intended for the people of Hebrew descent only, which is an example of nonrandom selection procedure.
Obviously, Buddha was using some kind of nonrandom selection procedure, although there is no data about it (too many Buddhist texts were lost during the course of centuries).
Just because a religion or a cult do not use a random selection procedure does not guarantee that it will survive, this means that a theory of a spread of a random mutation is not applicable to it.
DIFFERENT MODE OF SURVIVAL.
Fisher’s calculations show that Scientology membership will dwindle to zero. But this does not necessarily mean that CoS won’t survive as a non-cult corporation. If my assumptions and based on them calculations presented at another thread are correct, a large portion of CoS income does not come from the Bridge-related courses, it comes from the investment that has nothing to do with Scientology. In this case CoS may survive as a non-scientology financial or real estate firm.
FREEZONE.
I do not know how Freezone do the recruiting. If they recruit former Scientologists only, their organization will die along with CoS. But if new people are joining them, then their history will repeat the one of CoS, which is a rapid expansion and a prolonged decay without possibility of recovery.
MESSAGE TO THE OSA IDIOTS.
Your beloved “Church” is doomed, you are screwed.

Even the Mormons and Jehovah's Witness will hit a wall, because they have scooped up the low hanging fruit from intrusive door-to-door prosyletizing. After saying no several times, I'm not going to change my mind. There is a certain percent of people that will NEVER join any religion, let alone a controversial one. And, many fervent groups have a high drop out rate of young people, especially young men. I read that observent Mormon women have trouble finding observent potential husbands.

Second generations may stay in mom and dad's boring old religion, but only if they find fellowship. When I visited Flag (the Fort Harrison, in Clearwater, FL) in the 1970's I helped my relative for a day, writing names caligraphy-style on dopey certificates. But I got to hear some catty sniping between two teen workers, culminating in one puritanical teen saying "I'm going to tell Ethics!" I bet the other teen quit as soon as she turned 18, just to get away from the nasty young thought police.

Yes, my presentation applies to Jehovah Witnesses, they will become extinct. I know parctically nothing about the Mormons except that they call Smith a "prophet". What is/was his role in the Church I do not know.

The Baptists grew like crazy under Billy Graham, and trumpeted their growth as proof of their ideology. Mormons trumpeted their growth and showed it off with big churches with super-tall spires. When growth inevitably slows, they'll become just another boring tithe-demanding stick-in-the-mud.

Hello? could you overanalyze any more? All you have to do is look at an empty ideal org and know they are done for.

We have been discussing this fact for years. YEARS!

Christian Science is nearing the end-result:
A "Mother Church" in Boston, aping St. Peter's of Rome, barely attended.
Attractive but near-empty churches, gradually being closed.
Really empty reading rooms,
Aging staff paid by yesteryear's donors.
Charismatic founder and aggressive second-leader gone, replaced by forgettable nobodies.

While the Mormons welcome medical care, the Christian Scientists thin their own ranks by trying to pray away illness. This causes premature and frequently painful and gruesome death while appalling the remaining family members, especially the young ones.

Someday, the dwindling few should just sell the churches and donate the money to the poor.

I'm just waiting for the big sting.

Demented LRH.

Can you appropriately model an organisation subject to intentional control on the spread of a random mutation?

I'm not clear what it is that is supposed to be random. The occurrence of the mutation (that's what it initially looks like), or the transmission of the mutation through generations? When you start talking about whether the recruitment of people to Co$ is random (which you take as equivalent to not being conducted according to any set criterion) it starts to look like it is the transmission of the mutation which is supposed to be random.

Anyway, taking it that it matters (in the way you seem to suggest) whether recruitment to Co$ is or is not 'random' (interpreted as you interpret it), it is surely the case that this recruitment is not random. You mention that the targetting of celebrities is a small part of Co$ recruitment, and that this small part of recruitment is criterion-based, not random. But is it plausible to suppose either that the rest of scientology's current recruitment is 'random'? -- or that if it is scientology will continue to restrict itself to 'random' recruitment when it becomes evident that such recruitment is not enabling it to prevent shrinkage?

Jeff Hawkins has written about how scientology campaigns were targetted. (I don't remember the details, but I think it was educated, white, free-thinking. No doubt disposable $$$ were also considered desirable.)

Wieber stated in another thread recently that few people find their way into scientology. Mostly they are brought into scientology by people already within the organisation. If this is even partly right, it means that current recruitment is significantly non-random (according to your interpretation of this term).

I don't know the numbers, but impressionistically a lot of scientology members are from scientology families, which again implies non-random recruitment.

And as it becomes to hard to recruit sea org in the US (just as an example) DM (being an intentional agent) is quite capable of targeting people in low wage economies. He's not obliged to be random, and there's little reason to suppose he is or will be.

New recruits are urged to convert their friends and family, so those converts branch out from the initial person, just like operatingwog said. Co-worker and profession networks matter too. Chiropractors and naturopaths are targeted, and then urged to convert more of their profession. W.I.S.E targets small businesses with false promises of getting rich after taking W.I.S.E. courses. CoS recruiters work the streets around their org. So, recruits are often already connected by friendship, work, family or geography rather than just random recruitment. Of course, a scandal can hit a group or city hard, like Slatkin's Ponzi scheme or Miscavige abuses on the front page of the St. Pete Times. Those people will TALK to each other. A popular person may quit and take those friends and family with them.
Operatingwog is right that cities, groups, and families can get wise to CoS's lies and abuses, so Scientology tries different names like Dianetics or Life Improvement. And the CoS's final desperate act is to recruit overseas where their scandals are not yet famous. But this will also fail. The new Taiwanese members will figure out the scam and stop recruiting stop being generous, or quit outright.

Operatingwog:
Random means that no criterion is used to select a group of individuals -- this definition is not mine, it is used in all survey techniques.

If CoS were to abandon nonrandom criterion, they might or might not start growing again -- everything would depend on their new recruitment technique. All could be said at this point that Fisher’s calculation would become inapplicable to their case. A new theory would be needed to predict the CoS future. However, in order to choose a new, nonrandom criterion they have to abandon their method of selling Dianetics books at the bookstores and streets, which is not likely to happen.

When CoS members bring their friends to the church, this is still a random method of selection because the initial members were chosen at random. The same consideration applies to the family members. This is similar to techniques used by statisticians when they want to determine, for example, how people will vote in the next presidential election -- they could ask the members of a whole family whom they are likely vote for -- this selection of respondents is still random.

“And as it becomes to hard to recruit sea org in the US (just as an example) DM (being an intentional agent) is quite capable of targeting people in low wage economies. He's not obliged to be random, and there's little reason to suppose he is or will be.”

The countries may be low-income, but DM uses the same methods of recruitment that he applies in the USA, which means that his selection is random. Low wage economies have different wage stratum, just like high wage countries, which makes selection random.

“Jeff Hawkins has written about how scientology campaigns were targeted. (I don't remember the details, but I think it was educated, white, free-thinking. No doubt disposable $$$ were also considered desirable.)”

Sure, they try to target rich and well-educated people just like David Howsen said (probably, he still runs seminars at Big Blue). But their success rate with these people is even lower than success rate with the celebrities because higher education plus common sense prevents this people from joining CoS. There are sad exceptions from this rule like myself (I had BS in Paralegal when I joined CoS), but, in general, this rule holds very well. I met only two long-time Scientologists with college degrees -- one had BS in Mechanical Engineering, the other one -- PhD in English Literature. I also met college graduates who dubbed in Scientology but their fascination with the doctrine was very short, it lasted for no more than 4 months.

Spiritual seekers used to be sucked into CoS and scared into never researching it. But now even spirituality-seeking teens have heard the Xenu jokes and will never give up surfing the net.
Celebrity worshippers used to join Scientology because their favorite celebrity belonged, or joined in hope of becoming a movie star. But celebrity followers these days have watched too many Scientology jokes on talk shows and award shows, and the CoS celebrities, especially the male ones, are getting old.

Demented, you are failing to live up to your name. This is very disconcerting.

I'm baffled. Targeting celebrities is non-random. Targeting people from (say) a particular country is random?

I can't say I understand, but I hope you're right.

Anyway, can you use your model to predict when the membership will dwindle to near zero? Is there a typical membership (mutation distribution) graph shape, and can you identify where CoS is now on that graph?

Apparently, you were not paying attention to what I have said, operatingwog, which has happened in the past.
I said that targeting of celebrities is nonrandom. I also said that the number of CoS celebrities is less than 1% of total CoS membership, which makes it negligible.
If you want a graph, you could find one in the Fisher book that I mentioned in the original post; the graph drops down to zero level, I assure you. I also said that I do not know the exact CoS position because I do not know its attrition rate and current membership -- that would be a quantitative prediction of the CoS future. But qualitatively my application of the Fisher calculations to the CoS case is correct -- its membership was on a rise during pre-St. Hill years, then reached its peak during St. Hill times and after that went into a steady decline without recovery. In mathematical terms the graph of CoS membership is acyclic with a single maximum.
Choice of a country is nonrandom, of course. But the choice of survey recipients within a country could be random if certain sampling methods are used -- this is how, for example, the UN gather their statistical datum about country’s medium income, standard of living, birth rate, death rate, etc. The same is true for DM -- he could choose any country he likes, which is a nonrandom choice. But recruitment techniques in that country are same ones that are used in the USA, which makes them random.
Nonrandom choice of a country and subsequent random choice of survey participants (or Scientology recruits) in it is a case of stratified sampling.
None of the sampling ideas presented in this post are mine, they all come from the books and articles on mathematical statistics. Stratified sampling is explained in greater detail in the book Some Theory of Sampling by W. Deming. This book is a classic in the field of sampling, I recommend everyone interested in the topic to buy it.

This is correct Don Carlo. This is the reason why the CoS attrition rate has been on a rise recently. But even with a lower attrition rate they would be heading into oblivion, which would have been a case of prolonged agony.

I forgot to add this: CoS might contemplate to change their recruitment technique in order to survive. But a theory of a correct recruitment technique currently does not exist due to insurmountable mathematical difficulties. The only remaining choice is to use the error-and-trial method to develop such technique. But this is too risky of an approach; they are unlikely to take it.

Happy Thanksgiving to Americans and Canadians!