How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

Using the comparison of “military armed societies” and “demographically armed societies” is misleading. Both are “military armed societies”.

Yes … anti-male for the West while anti-female for the East: Yin-Yang theory/model.

“All problems in the West are due to males … especially white males. Thus soon there shall be none.
All problems in the East can be resolved by not having so many females.
Together they will eternally chase each other.”

You mean that the survived white females and the survived non-white males will eternally chase each other?

Umm… no. I mean a masculine
running half of the social world
and a feminine running the other
half … chasing each other.

And they will never meet each other?

This so called young bulge has noting to do with any danger.

If Pakistan had young bulge at 2007, then so the India. But, nothing like Pakistan has happened here.

Even, right now, in 2015, more than 65% of Indian population is under 35 years. But, let me assure you that nothing extraordinary is going to happen here.

It is not the question of young and old. The actual issue is what kind of ambience and opportunities a nation offers to its citizens. Everything depends on that, not on the age.

With love,
Sanjay

A “youth bulge” is defined as high number of young people, namely:

  1. Aged 0 to 29 years: 50% and more of the whole society;
    1a) Aged 0 to 14 years: 30% and more of the whole society;
    1b) Aged 15 to 29 years: 20% or more of the whole society.

There are some unrests and riots in India, also some fightings because of Kashmir.

[tab]KASHMIR on the subject:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj172SW2lIc[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDwotNLyz10[/youtube][/tab]

I do not know the exact figures, but my guess is that India would also quality for upto 50% citizens under 29 years, given that 65% of its citizens are under 35 years.

There are nothing such happening in India right now, which you can call unrest or riots. India has huge population, more than 128 million as we speak, which is equal to the sum of the whole of Europe and North America.

So, some incidents are bound to happen, when you are talking about as large numbers as these. My guess is that if you include all incidents of those above mentioned continents, they also will be quite close to their Indian counterparts.

Secondly, if you look back at the history, there was huge unrest and riots in the US some decades back, when black movement was going on.

Does that mean that US was also facing young bulge at those times? My guess is not. Those particular circumstances lead to unrest, not the age of its citizens.

I have not looked at the stats, but again my guess is that there must be this young bulge in the US also sometime around a century back. But, US progressed more during those years. China also must have passed through this phase 3 - 4 decades back.

The more rational deduction of this young bulge should be that, if a country has more young citizens, it will gather more speed in which direction it is moving already, whether that is progress or regress. It would be wrong to conclude that young bulge is dangerous by default.

Lastly, this gentleman has taken 29 years as a benchmark because that is almost the world median age, 29.6 to be precise.

With love,
Sanjay

China had its “great leap forward” from 1958 to 1962 and its terrible so-called “cultural revolution” from 1966 to 1976. 1979 Deng Xiaping launched the one-child-policy.

Yes. I agree.

Monaco has the oldest median age: 52.3 years.
Niger has the youngest median age: 15.2 years.

Population growth 1990–2012 (%):

Africa: 73.3%
Middle East: 68.2%
Asia (excl. China): 42.8%
China: 19.0%
OECD Americas: 27.9%
Non-OECD Americas: 36.6%
OECD Europe: 11.5%
OECD Asia Oceania: 11.1%
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia: -0.8%

Link to the source.

The change of the world poulation from 1950 to 2100:

Link to the source.

The world population from 1 AD to 2050:

h_p_f_1_t_2050.jpg

The “demographic transition” model:

Link to the source.

In Gunnar Heinsohn’s book “Menschenproduktion”, published in 1979, is mentioned that from a later view the graph of the world population development could look like this:


:open_mouth:

Most of the global population growth comes from the least developed countries:

I want to give you some links, because they may be interesting for this thread too:

The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:

Not as dangerous as countries which don’t produce any comedians, like Germany, for example. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: