If an economy is growing strongly, why would any son be "excess"?
This is an interesting question, which was only lightly addressed in the interview, but enough evidence was brought to light to suggest that it would be very difficult for any economy to grow strongly enough to use up a population growth of eightfold in a hundred years. Even an economy that is growing very strongly does not do so in a steady line.
When the inevitable busts come, there will be the question of how to handle the thwarted ambitions of all the "second sons" who are in the "last hired first fired" position. The answer has usually been to point them abroad, at enemies or colonies. Cf. the British Empire in the 18th and 19th century, when England had such a population boom AND one of the greatest spurts of economic growth in the history of the world.
Furthermore, the author specifically denies that the matter is economically, as opposed to culturally, determined. The mere fact that a growing economy provides these second sons with enough to eat and some sort of the job is NOT going to be adequate reason to prevent them from going to war, he says. They will look at the honors and position of the first sons - honors and positions denied to them - and demand a cause to fight for.
This kind of problem is only exacerbated in an honor-driven patriarchal society which practices polygamy, which concentrates the honors and the women to an elite group of men. This describes many Muslim and Arab societies.
On the one hand he talks about a youth bulge when a similar ratio is high, but thinks things will collapse when it is below one.
He doesn't say "below one" but "below 0.8". I think we both have to go read more than this interview. |
