This post from Sam Harris, an entrepreneur, engineer, and former data scientist at the U.S. Air Force, originally appeared on Quora as an answer to the question, “Is the United States on the brink of a political revolution?”
No. We don’t have enough teenagers.
When I was an officer in the Air Force, I was a data scientist, and at one point we were tasked with determining what level of violence in Iraq could be considered “normal” so that we could declare victory and leave with dignity.
Obviously, the base level of violence in Iraq would be higher than in Sweden, but precisely how much higher and why? These were the questions…
What we found was that the most significant factor was the number of individuals aged 13–19 relative to the number of individuals aged over 35. If the teenage group ever exceeded the over 35 group, violence increased to the point there was a very high chance of civil war. Furthermore, the opposite was true. If the 35+ year-olds outnumbered the teenagers, there was no chance of civil war.
Something tells me this is bullshit. Somehow I find it impossible to believe that the presence of teenagers would have a greater effect than economic conditions, or corruption, or population diversity/homogeneity. There is no denying that teenagers have less regulated amygdalae, and I imagine it would be tough to sell an honest government study on the effects of diversity on conflict. But a high percentage of teenagers in a dreamy period of relative dopamine glut, is not going to be more likely to war than a lower percentage of teenagers in a period of stressful dopamine shortage.
Nothing will trigger amygdalae like economic shortage, diversity, and dopamine deficiency. In the end war will always come from amygdala stimulation, diversity, and dopamine deficiency.
Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because amygdalae are a terrible thing to waste
[…] Are Teenagers Required For Revolution? […]
I read it slightly differently, if the 35+ crowd exceeds the teenagers, there is no revolt, because that society is dying. A dying society can no more revolt than a dying man. What he effectively said was, if they kill off enough youth, there will ne no revolt. Which explains why heavy handed socoetoes regularly try to limit the number of children born.
A social group with more under 35 than over 35, is a dynamic, living society. That society can revolt, it can choose to do something constructive instead, but it will not be static.
The imposition of top down structures can be done dynamically if you have the youth with you, but it must be done incrementally if you do not have sufficient youth with you.
Brilliant insight. Although he didn’t realize it, he is really saying a society with a high reproductive rate can still revolt. A society with a low reproductive rate will also not revolt for psychological reasons that go hand in hand with a lack of desire for offspring.
That might mean Apocalypse has a couple of phases. In the initial phase people hunker down and try to survive. The horror K-ifies them over time, they begin having kids, and between the K, and the kids they are willing to fight for. they revolt.
Could be.
This is along the right idea. A young society is expanding, an old one isn’t.
The British (according to Mark Steyn) took over the world because of improved childhood survival rates in late 1700’s. Surplus youth went and founded colonies and took over others (Canada, India, etc). Mostly it was younger men who expanded the US frontier, although to be fair, they were all mostly younger then 🙂
They have the energy and the motivation to do something…. Especially the energy.
Older populations are less likely to fight and go to war. As we age we get more sensetive to thoughts of mortality, so even if we’ve done everything we wanted as a youth, we are not anxious to die. The old know war means risking death.
Does that mean that the US can’t go to civil war? Heck no! The two it has already had were not started by 18 year olds. They were started and managed by those over 40 or 50. The delegates in the Civil War in 1860’s were all middle age and all hot heads.
Then looking at the one in 1770s which was the American Civil war with the English….. And it was a sort fo civil war – asking and answering how a portion of land would be governed was started and run by the 35+ crowd – Sam Adams, John (the other) Adams, Washinton, Franklin, etc. While the soldiers may have been young, the movers weren’t.
Although youth might be the fuel, and motivator at top the spark that gets a fire going. So maybe a civil war here is harder. But I suspect that there are plenty of local areas with young person in certian subgroups (like on SF Bart Trains) who might be motivated to start something. And it only takes one side to start a war.
We have a huge number of 35+ year old people with extended adolescences who ACT like teenagers. Is that enough?
Interesting idea. Age is just a proxy for a biological structure’s development.
First, the USA is alot bigger than Iraq. There are areas in the US that have many more teenagers than middle aged. Mr. Harris is comparing apples to oranges. He is taking his art and misapplying it to something else (ie. when all you have is a hammer). Also what is a “Civil War”? The definition is subjective. One could argue that any democracy is constantly in a state of low level civil war. Political violence has ALWAYS been present in the US, albeit usually at a very low level, but it is fast increasing. Mr. Harris should also definitely know that Abu-musab al-Zarqawi was 39 when JSOC/USAF killed him. Z boy had only increased his decap rates after age 35. The trigger of civil war in Iraq was two competing sects of Islam, which is a very violent religion. Everyone essentially became a combatant. You want to see a trigger for civil war in the US? Wait until the middle class white folk in Green Acres have starving kids- you’ll see just how crazy cornbread can get. And its all natural too, its the way human beings are programmed, tribal. And middle-aged/old people can be very, very ornery as well. Julius Caesar was 50 when he crossed the Rubicon.
I can see where Sam Harris is coming from. If a country is already fully populated and has twice as many 15-year-olds as 35-year-olds, half of those kids must die in the next twenty years to stay at carrying capacity. Complex, ever-shifting factions of blood, faith, and ideology are just a game of musical chairs to decide who eats and who dies.
Even if we’re not near carrying capacity now, we have been for 99% of human history, so our instincts would tend to reflect that.
I’ve thought about this before but I think you’re over-analyzing. The ultimate question is, do people have the physical vitality to fight? Old people will roll over and accept a bad situation unless they’re physically pushed into a fight and that pushing won’t happen often in developed countries.
A lot of young men full of piss and vinegar and testosterone, eager to prove themselves to ladies, and having only a basic understanding of dominance and “winning” in life (he who has the most power wins! Be ruthless!),and a lack of older fathers and father figures to direct them not to start popping off and getting hotheaded, and instead guiding them into maturity by designated junior roles and apprenticeships?
Actually, this guy makes a lot of sense. The only other thing that would further encourage it would be a lack of women around, which would make men fight all the more for the remaining women. In a female-rich environment, where sex was easy, the men would become r-selected and fight less over women.
Actually, the correlation between the percentage of teenage males and the level of violence in a society is a well-established sociological principle.
US demographics in 1860:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States#Population_by_race_and_age_.28census_2010.29
10-19 age groups: 13.8% of pop
35+ age groups: 65.8% of pop
His idea is stupid, and he probably is as well.
“But a high percentage of teenagers in a dreamy period of relative dopamine glut, is not going to be more likely to war than a lower percentage of teenagers in a period of stressful dopamine shortage.”
Wait. What they observed is a correlation, not a causation. The link is: If there are too few 35+ members of society – being in their prime productive years – there is not enough production to keep the teenagers satisfied and they’ll start to loot.
Of course teenagers CAN be forced to labor themselves – but that doesn’t make them happy either.
This seems a bastardised version of Gunnar Heinsohn’s “Söhne und Weltmacht” (Sonst and World Power). The basic theory is this: men civilise through marriage, for marriage, you need resources. If your society has way more young men between 17 and 22 looking to start out, than it has jobs being freed by men between 55 – 60, then there is conflict, because the young men are looking for a way to get resources no matter how. The size of the conflict depends on the ratio. A ratio like Germany’s (600 young vs 1000 old = 0.6) means no conflict. A ratio > 4.0 equals civil war if I’m not mistaken.
His argument and historical examples are convincing.
Interesting.