Well, it is, kinda... If you are 16 and less than half the population of your country is younger than you, you could be called "old "... Of course such median could be, e.g., a result of a colossal, unprecedent baby boom in the last couple years, but I assume all of us are educated enough to know what such medians truly means...
What do you think it truly means? It doesn't mean that you are old. And in fact all of these countries *have* had unprecedented booms in population. Not because people are having more kids- they are having as many as ever- but more because quality of life is improving (access to clean water, medicine)... but still not very good... in this state between being catastrophically impoverished and on the path toward developing, the death rate remains high while the infant mortality rate starts to drop precipitously. Whenever a country gets to this stage in development there is almost always a population explosion.
I swear, quizzes about demographics provoke the most painful comments. This list is not "sad," "depressing," or "scary." It is a reflection of a phase in a demographic transition. That phase presents significant problems, for sure. These problems are similar in some ways to what was experienced in Europe during its own, similar, phase. (Of course, parts of Europe got to export surplus populations to - their own or others' - colonial outposts, mitigating those challenges.) Sixteen is not "old" in Niger, or anywhere else. We all (except for the Malthusians, I suppose) hope for continued declines in infant- and child mortality rates. Those are the biggest factors dragging down mean and (to a lesser extent) median ages. And while young populations present significant challenges, ask European and (especially) East Asian governments what their primary demographic challenges are these days. France, for example, might be able to address them with immigration. What does China do?
Well this is depressing. All of these are starving African countries or poor countries ravaged by war. What's worst, many of these countries at the top (or bottom if you will) have both.
The good news: in almost every measure, whether its GDP, life expectancy, fertility rate, or rate of violence, things are improving rapidly on the continent of Africa.
The "improvement" to fertility rate QM is referring to I think is that it is falling. Either that... or he meant to say infant mortality rate. Fertility and infant mortality are usually inversely correlated, and yes a high fertility rate decreases median age.
Yes, in this case I mean that fertility rates are falling in Sub-Saharan Africa which is a good thing for them. Other countries, such as Japan, could use a higher birth rate.
I'm surprised that all the countries on the list are in Africa. There is no any war-torn countries or autocratic countries in other continents on the list, like Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea or Haiti.
Because many of these are not only war torn, but also disease ridden. That lethal combination proves to be much worse for these poor African countries than other Asian/middle eastern nations that are only ravaged by war.
Keep in mind that the low median age basically means that there are many children per adult in those country. It's rather related to the high fertility and demographic expansion than to a low life expectancy.
Countries that are currently in wars won't have particularly low median ages, because wars both kill children and make people want to wait with procreation. The "sweet" spot is a few years after a war, when people start making children again, and older generations are still depleted.
Afghanistan is very close to being on this list, and neither Syria nor Haiti are that high either. Not sure why North Korea is so high, but can you really trust their data?
That is beyond delusional. China has been top in population for centuries if not millenia and it is not running the world even today. Numbers do not mean much if not backed by other factors such as resources, military power, scientific advancement and stability.
That moment when you press 'give up' and then have to conclude that you were wrong in thinking you had tried all countries in Africa south of the Sahara
The south is also doing reasonably well. In fact, Botswana and South Africa are doing better than Egypt and Libya in terms of HDI, and Angola and Namibia aren't that far behind.
The country with the lowest life expectancy in Africa is CAR, at 52.8 years, and the highest life expectancy in sub-Saharan, mainland Africa is Botswana at 69.3 years. The overall life expectancy for Africa is 62 for males and 65 for females, versus the global life expectancy of 70 for males and 75 for females.
I was shocked C.A.R. wasn't one of the answers to the quiz. I even typed it out in full the second time I tried it, just to be sure it really wasn't an answer.
The median age means that if you took all the people's ages in a country and divided them by the number of people living in that country, you would get the median age. It just shows that there are a lot of younger people in these countries and that their life expectancies are lower. It is sad though.
I think you are describing the mean, aka average, age. The median age is just the age of the 50th percentile individual. In other words, half the population is above the median age and half the population below it. Similar to, but not the same as, average age.
By itself a low median age does not NECESSARILY mean that life expectancy is low (although the two often coincide because poverty leads to both more children and shorter lives).
You could theoretically imagine a country where the median age is 15 but every single individual over 15 years old is also 100 years old. Then the median age would be very low but the life expectancy would be quite high indeed.
the result of sending trillions of dollars in aid to africa. nature would keep their fertility rate in check if it weren't for endless funds coming their way to temporarily improve their helpless situation.
That is very cruel and also just wrong. Higher living standards are the reason of the higher populations, but also lowering the fertility rates in the long term. Every single advanced country in the world went through this development. It will balance itself out eventually, no need for extinction fantasies.
Afghanistan: 19.5
North Korea: 34.6
Haiti: 24.1
Afghanistan is very close to being on this list, and neither Syria nor Haiti are that high either. Not sure why North Korea is so high, but can you really trust their data?
The country with the lowest life expectancy in Africa is CAR, at 52.8 years, and the highest life expectancy in sub-Saharan, mainland Africa is Botswana at 69.3 years. The overall life expectancy for Africa is 62 for males and 65 for females, versus the global life expectancy of 70 for males and 75 for females.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
By itself a low median age does not NECESSARILY mean that life expectancy is low (although the two often coincide because poverty leads to both more children and shorter lives).
You could theoretically imagine a country where the median age is 15 but every single individual over 15 years old is also 100 years old. Then the median age would be very low but the life expectancy would be quite high indeed.
Statistics are fun.