11-04-2019, 11:45 AM
** 04-Nov-2019 World View: Democide and population growth
That's a good point, and it's one of the reasons that I've been
puzzled by this issue for years.
The generational cycle is very general, and and any catastrophic event
that affects the entire population creates its own generational cycle,
with unique behaviors related to the catastrophic event. Events like
this that I've discussed in the past include the 1918 Spanish Flu
epidemic, and the 1929 financial panic. The most visible effects of
the resulting generational cycles occur as I've described with the "58
Year Hypothesis," when a panic occurs 58 years after the event -- in
these examples the false swine flu panic in 1976 and the false stock
market panic in 1987, respectively.
So when we're talking about something as drastic as a fall in
population, or even a sharp fall in population growth, then it really
has to be associated with some event -- a huge famine, a huge
pandemic, or a huge war. And if it's a war, then it would have to be
tied into the major generational cycle generated by a crisis war.
I had assumed for years that the fall in population was caused by war
deaths during a generational crisis war, but I was never able to find
data to support that assumption. The introduction of the effects of
"democide" still tie the fall in population (growth) into the war's
generational cycle, but not directly into the generational crisis war
that spawned the generational cycle.
There is still speculation involved in this, and obviously a lot more
research is needed, but the democide concept really is like a missing
puzzle piece that completes the jigsaw. I really am pleased by how
much it ties together the other theoretical pieces, particularly when
democide occurs after a generational crisis war which was an ethnic,
racial, tribal or class civil war. The democide occurs because the
leader of the tribe that won the civil war keeps killing people in the
opposition tribe for decades after the war ends, resulting in a loss
of population through "democide."
There are other population effects that appear to occur around a
crisis war: delays in marriage and having children before and during a
crisis war, increase in suicide rate before and during a crisis war,
and then a baby boom after the crisis war.
There's still a lot of stuff to be figured out here, such as how a
regional democide affects neighboring nations, and how regional
democides affect the global population as a whole. But I really see
this as answering some major questions, and pulling together pieces of
the Generational Dynamics theory into a whole picture.
(11-02-2019, 09:11 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Why does generational dynamics imply that generational crisis wars
> reduce the population? Or are we talking about some extension to
> that theory?
(11-02-2019, 09:39 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: > Because the population grows faster than the food supply.
(11-03-2019, 09:24 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: > That only implies that there has to be population reduction, or at
> least population growth reduction, at some point. It doesn't have
> to be linked to the generational cycle.
That's a good point, and it's one of the reasons that I've been
puzzled by this issue for years.
The generational cycle is very general, and and any catastrophic event
that affects the entire population creates its own generational cycle,
with unique behaviors related to the catastrophic event. Events like
this that I've discussed in the past include the 1918 Spanish Flu
epidemic, and the 1929 financial panic. The most visible effects of
the resulting generational cycles occur as I've described with the "58
Year Hypothesis," when a panic occurs 58 years after the event -- in
these examples the false swine flu panic in 1976 and the false stock
market panic in 1987, respectively.
So when we're talking about something as drastic as a fall in
population, or even a sharp fall in population growth, then it really
has to be associated with some event -- a huge famine, a huge
pandemic, or a huge war. And if it's a war, then it would have to be
tied into the major generational cycle generated by a crisis war.
I had assumed for years that the fall in population was caused by war
deaths during a generational crisis war, but I was never able to find
data to support that assumption. The introduction of the effects of
"democide" still tie the fall in population (growth) into the war's
generational cycle, but not directly into the generational crisis war
that spawned the generational cycle.
There is still speculation involved in this, and obviously a lot more
research is needed, but the democide concept really is like a missing
puzzle piece that completes the jigsaw. I really am pleased by how
much it ties together the other theoretical pieces, particularly when
democide occurs after a generational crisis war which was an ethnic,
racial, tribal or class civil war. The democide occurs because the
leader of the tribe that won the civil war keeps killing people in the
opposition tribe for decades after the war ends, resulting in a loss
of population through "democide."
There are other population effects that appear to occur around a
crisis war: delays in marriage and having children before and during a
crisis war, increase in suicide rate before and during a crisis war,
and then a baby boom after the crisis war.
There's still a lot of stuff to be figured out here, such as how a
regional democide affects neighboring nations, and how regional
democides affect the global population as a whole. But I really see
this as answering some major questions, and pulling together pieces of
the Generational Dynamics theory into a whole picture.
