This article posits a couple of interesting ideas, including this one:
Clearly from his wikipedia page this guy is a controversial figure, but this theory kinda sounds intruiging in an Occam’s Razor kind of way. What do you guys think?
Oh really? :dubious:
Well, ya. It seems possible that more young men == larger pool to draw upon to wage violent conflicts of one sort or another, right?
But young men don’t decide which conflicts will be fought.
Right - *old *men do that.
But often, the old men have to make a choice whether to let the young men fight 1. each other, 2. the existing power structure (meaning the old men) - or 3. outsiders. Most often, they choose Option 3, and can you blame them?
It seems from the example of the Baby Boomers in the US that there’s something else going on, too. His theory seems to predict that there would be war when those young men were of fighting age, which there was. But it also seems to predict that the war would be popular and there wouldn’t be peace marches in the US, which AIUI is not what happened with the Vietnam War.
There could be something to the idea, but not as I read it described in the linked article. While a high percentage of young people can’t help but have an impact on the priorities of a country, I think what probably matters more is how the young people fit into society. An overpopulation of young people in a society that has opportunities for them is probably a damn good problem to have: I think the baby boom in the US is probably more responsible for jump-starting the computer age and the information economy rather than being the cause of the Vietnam war.
On the other hand, I have little doubt that demographics helped drive the senseless wars in Sierra Leone, for example.
What’s more, the authors insights on the Iraq war are totally bizarre. The implication seems to be that Iraq got itself into a war with the United States because they have a very high population of young people, or that Iraq is a major source of terrorist. Uh, excuse me? The war in Iraq was basically a choice made by the US – whose military is decreasingly dependent on young people – and Iraq really wasn’t a major source of terrorists or terrorism until the US invaded. Just quickly checking the CIA’s World Factbook, it appears that Saudi Arabia and Iran – both of which have, IMHO, more involvement in terrorism – have generally older societies than Iraq.
Right, I’ll go with Ravenman’s analysis on this one. Although I think the demographic structure of a nation can be a major contributor to war and violence, I don’t think it’s a necessary and sufficient relationship. It can go either towards economic health and productivity or armed violence depending on the opportunities and other factors present in those societies at the same time as those population bulges.
Ya I agree, it seems more likely to be predictive in places where there is less infrastructure for the population bulge. Might have some relevence to the middle east though, if there is accurate census data for those places.
I think we should all the thankful that we don’t have a Polygamist Mormon Government with an army anywhere. Nowadays the (illegal) radical polygamist sects just exile their excess male population so that the remaining males can have all the females. If they were a Nation with nowhere to send all those males, they might be inclined to start nasty wars knowing that losing large numbers of men is actually a Good Thing for the power structure.
As far as young men WANTING to join the army, maybe. Face it, the only time that military life appaels to most of us, is when we are young. When you are a teenager, you don’t think you will die, dressing up in a uniform seems cool, and the comradery with other young men is appealing. Once you hit 30, army life (and the chance of being killed) looks a whole lot less appealing.
It sounds a lot like the theory that crime started declining in the mid 80s because all the unwanted children who would have been entering their teen years were aborted when Row v Wade was passed in '73.
It also sounds similar to Strauss and Howe’s 4 generation cycle theories.
IOW, mostly simplistic bullshit.
There’s no denying that demographics play a role in a societies structure. But I don’t believe you can make sweeping predictive statements based on it.