How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

  • Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies.
  • Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous than other societies.
  • Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies.
0 voters

How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 51-100 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 0-49 danger points for the other societies.
Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 50 danger points for both the demographically armed societies and the other societies.
Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 0-49 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 51-100 danger points for the other societies.

Demographically armed societies mean societies with a very high number of young people aged 0 to 14 years (30% and more of the whole society) and/or aged 15 to 29 years (20% or more of the whole society). This phenomenon is also called “youth bulge”.

Pakistan of 2007 as an example for a “youth bulge”:

Percentage of population younger than 30 years old (2005 and 2025):

Do you know Gunnar Heinsohn?

I think that Heinsohn’s theory is quite interesting but not entirely true.

Dangerous in what way and to whom?

… typical NWOdor propaganda.

The general scope of the argument is based on accepted perimeters of inherent youthful delinquencies in younger people, where the danger of violance is quadritically correspondent on the degree of economic malfunction within a paticular society.

But i do agree with You Arminius, the unresolved notion of how well that society deals with internal violance within itls own borders. That is to say, a society used to internal viooane may have a self preception of negative projection of self image vis a vis the authority or the systemic approach toward violence. It’s presumable that sustained effectve internal violence will probably thread a probabilistic curved relationship between sustained (non-increasing) into more linear type graphic representation. This could mean, that the paerticipants, within yping age groups, could conceivably effexct a ‘status quo’, where a certain amount of dissatisfaction within that group could effect their potential danger in line with socties relative acceptance of that underlying danger.

Maybe it is in a sense good, to balance the intenal hiltility and potential violence, with the external possible effect, since yong males are prime candidates for subscription into the armed foces, and this type of angeer-readiness makes forideal soldiers.

Some cops, at least in America, sense this within their own societies, and the higher ground of not letting socety go too soft and secure, in fear of extreme complacement vis a vis, other societies.

I cannot vote here, because i think another classified option is missing: below ‘extremely dangerous’ there should be one of, simply, ‘dangerous’. To go from extremely to not, does not allow an intermediately dangerous option to be voted upon. If one would be
introduced, i would opt for that option, vis. that demographically armed societies are more dangerous
then non demographicslly loaded ones. Your
introduction of the word ‘extremely’ introduces a
bias error into the opinion.

Demographically armed societies are dangerous to the other socities and also to themselves, because they tend more to violence than the demographically unarmed societies.

You mean that Heinsohn’s theory of the youth bulge is a “typical NWOdor propaganda”?

Okay, so you would vote:

“Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies.”

But you do not need to vote, Orbie. It is also okay to not vote.

But I did vote just now, with a caveat(alas only to an internal one), that extreme may be a bit over the top. however, who knows, potentially dangerous situations may lead to other extremely dangerous situations. I do accede to the OP, as generally put.

my reasons for my change of heart have to do with philosophical analysis is , a goal oriented ,descriptive and post riptide end product.

My argument for more categories of description between extreme and dangerous potential situations, was meant as an exploratory venture into the leeway You would give, in terms of evaluating, or rather, broadening the categorical classifications, so as to propose an idea based on literal interpretation.

You may have added an additional category of ‘Merely dangerous’, in order to rate the level at which You may expect, at a more moderate expectation, and asking for a vote on basis of a suggested extreme level, may have shown an expectation at that level.

However, after Your feedback, I still thought of it as a dangerous potential to have, and not belov that, so that left the only available option.

lastly, I could have not voted, as suggested, but on reconsideration, that choice would have left me in an irresponsible position of having no opinion.

As it is better to have an opinion with a post script explanation, then none at all, I reconsidered my position. in addition a more flexible choice is tatamount to variance and subsequent changes oft reflect this very flexibility. The danger of armed violance , especially among the young, the poor , and the uneducated, simply requires response, where the analyst has to leave the ego at the doorstep.

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,

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:


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,

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.