01-23-2020, 09:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2020, 09:31 PM by Eric the Green.)
(01-23-2020, 08:30 PM)Ghost Wrote:(01-23-2020, 07:12 PM)jleagans Wrote: 72 years, with each turning and generational cohort covering 18 years. 18 is our clearest demarcation of childhood to adulthood, with 18x4=72.
I remember having a thread where I argued about 72-year saeculums. However, it received a lot of criticism on here.
It actually does make a lot of sense and I can see how it works. The 1996 cutoff for Millennials seems very similar to the 1924 cutoff for the GI Generation, with 1997-1999 and 1925-1927 as being years that are mostly seen as the later generation despite having some sources occasionally lumping them with the previous generation. (for 97-99, it would be Homelanders, and for 25-27, it would be the Silents). 1924-1927 also have the same Chinese zodiac animals as 1996-1999 (1924 and 1996 are rat years, 1925 and 1997 are ox years, 1926 and 1998 are tiger years, 1927 and 1999 are rabbit years).
1925 and 1928 are both very good starting points for Silents, similar to how 1997 and 2000 are both very good starting points for Generation Z/Homelanders.
The Pew generation dates are not based on generational characteristics. Using those, Gen Z probably starts around 2003. Be that as it may, the saeculum if anything should be getting longer, according to what the saeculum is based upon. That is the average length of a human lifetime. That is much more than 72 years, now, and has been getting longer (although not in the USA under Trump). A lot of 72-year old folks today are just getting started! S&H defined the archetypal length of the saeculum in T4T as 84 years, based on the length of a human life and 21-year generations.
It could be claimed that generations are shorter because young people now come of age sooner, such as at 18. They propose a 5-turning cycle, extending the human life length to 90. I haven't been convinced of this yet though.