How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

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:

They produced Karl Marx and Fred Nietzsche, didn’t they.

Yeah, their philosophy was a big joke wasn’t it! :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

James, do you know the German humorist, poet, illustrator, painter, and inventor of comics and written comedy: H. C. Wilhelm Busch? He was born in 1832, thus a contemporary of both Karl Marx and Fiedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and of course: Busch did not take them as serious as most of the ILP members do. H. C. Wilhelm Busch published his first comic illustrated cautionary tales in 1859 when Marx published his “Kritik der politischen Ökonomie”.

Some impressions:

Back to the topic:

If the demographically armed societies are going to remain dangerous, then Europeans will perhaps leave Europe and go to those dangerous countries with racism politics, for example: Australia and New Zealand. These racism countries welcome only those humans who have enough money to enrich these racism countries. These racism countries are the real dangerous countries, especially of the near future, and will become even more dangerous than the current demographically armed societies.

When was it? I mean: When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

Look here for the answer.