If we look at the history of the last quarter century, we see two dominant and inter-related trends. Radical Islam isn’t one of them. First, the collapse of Soviet Communism inspired other followers to abandon the controlled economy for participation in the world market. Second, information technology destroyed many old barriers. Upheaval and opportunity resulted. Currently, about a quarter of all the people in the world are aged 10 to 24. That is, they were born between 1992 and 2006. The world in which they have grown up is that same world that older people have often found so disorienting. Now young people face their own problems.
Those billions of young people are not equally distributed around the world. They account for only 17 percent of the population in economically developed countries; for 29 percent in less-developed countries, and 32 percent in the least developed countries. In the United States, the median age is 37; in Russia, 39; in Germany, 46. In Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, the median age is 18. China offers a particularly interesting case of a transition. Faced with a swiftly rising population, China declared a one-child policy for married couples. It worked so well that the youth base of the population narrowed to a frightening degree. A shortage of workers to replace those who are approaching retirement loomed. At the same time, young couples found themselves providing care for up to four aging parents, while trying to work and raise their own child. Recently, the government ended to one-child policy.
A disproportionate share of young people lives in the countries least well able to provide them with either an adequate education or a decent standard of living. Take the example of India. There are more than 420 million Indians between the ages of 15 and 34. The median age is 27. Desperate measures to expand primary education have had mixed results. Although almost all Indian children now attend primary school, half of fifth graders can neither read at a second grade level nor do subtraction.
Then, India needs to create 12-17 million new jobs every year to absorb the population growth. In India and in other countries in similar dire straits, young people are forced into spotty, badly-paid just to get any jobs at all. India’s reluctance to end the carbon-burning that drives economic growth in that country is easier to understand in light of that imperative. The here and now weighs more heavily in the balance of decision-makers than does the future.
Migration from “young” countries to “aging” countries might offer a solution. However, there are several big barriers here. First, even in the developed countries there is a problem of youth unemployment: in the United States, almost 17 percent of people between 16 and 29 are not in school and not working; in the European Union the youth unemployment rate averages 25 percent. It will be difficult to make the case for expanded immigration of young people when a country cannot even provide work for its own young people. Second, the poor quality of education in many developing countries means that only some people will be viable migrants.
Even so, migration from the Lands of Inopportunity to the Lands of Opportunity may be inevitable. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. The current refugee crisis in Europe shows just how difficult it can be to keep out hordes of determined people.
 Somini Sengupta, “The World’s Big Problem: Young People,” NYT, 6 March 2016.
 The wretched state of education can be glimpsed in Aravind Adiga, The White Tiger (2008), and Mohsin Hamid, How to Get Filthy Rich in Rising Asia (2013).
 A third problem is anti-female sex selection. There are 17 million more Indian males than females aged 10 to 24.
 Sengupta argues that the high European rate results from a combination of a slow economy and the absence of economically valuable skills. The same may be true in the United States, although some economists would argue that the skills-deficit argument is false.