To Gray Badger:

We live, economically, is a highly leveraged and globally interdependent environment. I have no doubt that some or all of this will come to pieces together before the end of the 4T. How will it get put back together? That’s for the Xers and Millennials to figure out.

What I worry about most is a (b) the advent of a serious recession in the EU, (b) the collapse of a large emerging economy, (c) the economic echo of a large new act of terror, or (d) the sudden re-emergence of economic nationalism (including trade protectionism and/or investment barriers), which may happen in the context of the war on terror or in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Never before in our history, not even in the decades just before WWI, has the world been so dependent on international flows of goods and capital. What’s more, since the late 1990s, the net flow of capital has been from developing countries to the developed countries. Today, this is on the order of $800 billion yearly, featuring most prominently the purchase of U.S. federal debt by China.

What happens if China succumbs overnight to rising class- and corruption-fed tensions? Historically, China has never been an “open” and liberal society for long without such sudden reversions. What if the EU falls to pieces under the strain of economic hardship. What if actions against Iran triggers global jitters—or, in reverse, if something Iran does makes western investers nervous.

All of this makes me nervous.

Not to mention the fact that the housing market, the perennial mainstay of the Unravelling's economy, is starting to show some very worrisome cracks.

Thanks. I had thought about China but not about Europe; about 'dependence on foreign oil' (that cliche) but not about a terrorist act having economic impact. You've given me much to think about.

The share of each generation's leadership needs to be normalized against differences in the number of cohorts. Missionaries and (especially) Transcendentals were both longer generations than Boomers, measured in terms of birthyears.

We're now at an historic high in the age of Members of Congress, having recently surpassed the prior peak during the early years of the Great Depression. Whether that is the consequence of more people (i.e., Silent) living to older ages is possible, but the record shows that the rise and fall of the median age of national leaders can occur to reasons wholly unrelated to current demographic trends.

Anyone interested in this topic might like to see the "news and research" link on our www.lifecourse.com web site, where we post national leadership shares for each generation, along with average age charts and data.

I guess we'd have to say that four active generations have always been present in most of American history. When I (mid-wave Boomer) was in college, the Lost Generation was still around (J Edgar Hoover, old-line Senate chairmen, and others). When the Silent was coming of age, starting near the end of WWII, the Missionaries were still around. Patton was at the Bulge, Robert Frost was still writing poetry, Macarthur had yet to lead the Inchon landing in Korea. When the G.I.s were just starting to get active, we still had Progressives around. A few of them still lingered on in the Supreme Court during the mid-1930s, much to FDR's displeasure.

Will longer lifespans increase the impact of the eldest generation? That depends, at least to some extent, on whether they use their extra years to participate actively in public and family life. I see a some evidence in family life, not a lot in public life.

While we talk a lot about reducing dependence on foreign oil, we tend to view things with rose-colored glasses. I have argued on here for a long time that if we are serious about reducing oil dependency, we should also begin the process to reduce auto dependency, but this seldom if ever gets talked about in circles of power. There seems to be a very staunch resistance to this, despite studies that show traffic congestion to be up to three times worse than in the 1980's. Is extensive gridlock here to stay, or will the US eventualy see the light? Reducing auto dependency can go a long way toward making us more environmentally friendly, another area where there is lots of talk but little if any action.

One poster told me that since public transit provides a more "civic" way of doing things, that midlife Millies would possibly be more inclined to make this conversion. Yet it was during the post-war GI heyday that the US car culture really began to overheat.

Last year, New Gingrich stated that "It's World War III". Do you think that another catastrophic global war is likely, or has global civilization evolved to the point that a repeat is unlikely? To be fair, in the early 1930s, I doubt that anyone foresaw a new global war.

Internationally, what nations are "threats"? Is Russia a potential threat? Can you see the US finally getting into thermonuclear warfare with Russia sometime in this Crisis?

Does China seem to be a future threat to you?

Or what about Venezuela and other "socialist" South American nations?

How likely is it for Europe to experience a major internal war between nations?

From what I know of Heroes, it reflects a societal yearning to find heroes in new places where people wouldn't ordinarily expect to find them. (That's something akin to American Idol's effort to find celebrities in new places.) As the G.I. Generation fades into history, our quest to find the next heroes will take on artificial (or educational) forms during a third turning, and very real forms during a fourth turning. Recall how often we heard the word "hero" in connection with 9/11, and how we routinely hear it after events like Virginia Tech or the Charleston fire.

Not many television shows get Millennials correctly, in part because the target audience is still quite Gen-X, the main buyers of products TV can sell. (The fact that Millennials are tuning out TV ads doesn't help inspire network executives to make programming for them.) As a platform, one of today's most Millennial forms of video entertainment is YouTube, which enables Millennials to be producers, directors, film stars, or anything they want. Democratizing the culture, and creating a new middle class of culture providers, are key aspects of what we'll see with this generation over the next twenty years.

Yes, I'd agree with that--at least two and a half of them, anyway. Economy and Energy, definitely. Environment? With all due deference to our friend Al Gore, it's harder for me to imagine how that can have any sudden near-term impact. The apocalyptic tone with which the environment is now discussed says more about our 4T mood than about the likelihood of future events. Put another way, we would say that large-scale environmental action may well be part of what America (and others) try to do in the 4T. But it's unlikely to trigger the 4T.

BTW, Mr. Howe, Mr. Strauss, I want to thank you and applaud you for all your work in bringing the saeculum to light. It's been one hell of an intellectual trip.

All in all I think that Barak Obama feels uncomfortable with the rhetorical "stilettos out" style of Boomers much as FDR was likely uncomfortable with the more abrasive manifestations of Missionaries. We now consider FDR a "Missionary" even if he had several Reactive features -- most notably pragmatism and much less judgmentalism. He failed to latch onto such Missionary crusades as Prohibition, eugenics, and Christian fundamentalism. To be sure, he could judge gangsters and fascists as harshly as anyone else -- not that such judgment wasn't cheap.

I notice much the same in Generals Marshall and MacArthur -- and Admiral Halsey was as crusty as anyone. But 1882/1883 conveniently divides the good FDR from such evil characters as Pierre Laval, Benito Mussolini, and Stalin's legal hatchetman Andrei Vyshinsky, all born in 1883. That said I find some very nasty characters born between 1879 and 1882: Stalin himself (1879), Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel (the man who nazified the German Army) and the bloodthirsty Romanian dictator Ion Antonescu (the latter two 18820 . But even in culture, I find such composers as Ottorino Respighi (1879), Bela Bartok (1881) and Igor Stravinsky (1882) more Lost-like (Berg, Prokofiev) in their musical language than with Mahler, Sibelius, or Rachmaninov. James Joyce doesn't seem very Missionary-like, either.

Back to Barak Obama: it's possible to imagine him as another Harry Truman... but as such he wouldn't fit the generational pattern. It might be easier -- and safer -- to adjust the generational boundaries than to change the theory.

To the authors: Would longer life expectancies effect the saeculum in any significant way, If so how that effect turning lengths?

First we fight a pre-emptive war without being attacked, which I doubt any of the old GIs would have thought possible in their heyday. Then we lock people up, throw away the key, deny them attorneys or the right to confront their accusers or even to know what is the evidence against them, we invent new categories instead of trying suspected terrorists for either treason, acts of war, or criminal activity - and people just sit by impotently and let it happen! Many of them seem to have no clue that these have been our basic values for over 200 years.

Is this just the usual 4T war fever? (Or 3T - thinking now of some of the stuff pulled in the 20s) - or was I deceived in my 1T Civics classes? - or has something truly terrible really happened to the way Americans now think? Something on the order of the Roman changeover from Republic to Principate?

Those who like to describe us as being in World War III are engaging in what my oldest (Gen-X, 1977 cohort) daughter likes to call "turning yearning." Without doubt, there are a number of contemporary politicians, mainly Boomers, who outwardly revel in the prospect of having a really tough crisis, even a war, to handle. Many Boomers took large personal risks when young. Now some of their leaders seem willing to take large national risks as their generation enters its elder leader phase.

From where would global rivals come? From many possible places. Around the world, there are global Boomerlike generations, led by those who, like Boomers, tend to discount the civic order established by the treaties and lesser wars that followed World War II. When some of those regimes have conflicting inner-driven values, with leaders willing to take large national risks--that's when the risk rises that a fourth turning could bring a dangerous war.

As we have written, a fourth turning need not lead to a war, but the script is there. Al Gore seems determined to lead the nation and world through something resembling a fourth turning that does not involve war. He is very aware of our books and theories, and I have a hunch he sees a global battle against atmospheric warming as a possible alternative to a fourth turning war. Leaving aside any argument about the scientific merits of Gore's case, let's ask: From a turnings standpoint, is he right? The script is also there for that, but first the U.S. and other societies need to develop enough of a fourth turning mood to be willing to accept the sorts of sacrifices that would be required--and that might not happen without other significant events taking place first, to shake these societies out of their third turning complacency.

I have asked this same question regarding other issues, such as why have we put up with such things as massive outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries, and near total domination by corporations on most aspects of American life. Why has retail become so cookie-cutter bland, one size fits all at a time of rampant individualism?

Some historians of note that, as history has advanced, wars have become shorter and rarer but more catastrophic when they occur. Let's hope that doesn't prove to be true in the future. But with weapons of mass destruction--not just nukes, but all the things you read about in sci fi books, from designer plagues to nanotech poisons--we certainly need to be on our guard. Fortunately, at this moment in history, the governments and groups with the means to risk great harm to the West (China, Russia, Pakistan) don't happen to be the same governments and groups with the motive to risk great harm (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda). But that may change. Moreover, regardless of nations' motives going into some high risk situation, crises often "evolve" in unpredictable and catastrophic way (viz. WWI). If, e.g., Iran nears acquisition of nukes, that is likely to trigger similar arming by several Arab countries--and soon the situation could have an abundant number of unhappy endings. Of one thing we are sure: If just a single nuke goes off anywhere in the world, near any population center, the history of the world will change on the spot. In this country, certainly, the political climate will change overnight. Economic repercussions? Huge, without any doubt.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I have asked this same question regarding other issues, such as why have we put up with such things as massive outsourcing of American jobs to third world countries, and near total domination by corporations on most aspects of American life. Why has retail become so cookie-cutter bland, one size fits all at a time of rampant individualism?

"Why are we locking people up and torturing them and throwing away the key?" - "Why has retail become so cookie-cutter bland?"

Not to be nasty, but -

"Why are there bombs falling on our house, Daddy?" - "Why won't my tie hang straight?"

Originally Posted by William Strauss

From what I know of Heroes, it reflects a societal yearning to find heroes in new places where people wouldn't ordinarily expect to find them. (That's something akin to American Idol's effort to find celebrities in new places.) As the G.I. Generation fades into history, our quest to find the next heroes will take on artificial (or educational) forms during a third turning, and very real forms during a fourth turning. Recall how often we heard the word "hero" in connection with 9/11, and how we routinely hear it after events like Virginia Tech or the Charleston fire.

Not many television shows get Millennials correctly, in part because the target audience is still quite Gen-X, the main buyers of products TV can sell. (The fact that Millennials are tuning out TV ads doesn't help inspire network executives to make programming for them.) As a platform, one of today's most Millennial forms of video entertainment is YouTube, which enables Millennials to be producers, directors, film stars, or anything they want. Democratizing the culture, and creating a new middle class of culture providers, are key aspects of what we'll see with this generation over the next twenty years.

I think you have it right. Most of us fail to understand the Millennial Generation because it fails to play by 'the rules' -- if 'the rules' means responding to the same pushing of buttons as did the Silent, Boomers, or Thirteeners.

Not until Millennial youth become advertising executives and media moguls will mass media and mass advertising reflect Millennial trends. Then they will shape society -- perhaps more subtly in culture than in engineering and science. To be sure, Civic youth are slow to reshape the culture except to sanitize the rough edges of the preceding Reactive generation.

After all, it wasn't until 1928 when the first GI to make a huge impact upon pop culture -- Walt Disney -- made his mark. Culture is not a strong suit of a Civic generation, even if some (Leonardo, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Goethe, Goya, Mozart, and Kurosawa) are spectacular.

By the way -- thank you immensely for discovering the Royal Road of history!

The inherent question raised above is whether Barack Obama can be a gray champion as a nomad-archetype leader.

Neil and I believe that the 1961 birthyear boundary is correct, and that Obama is not a Boomer. While he does not call himself a Gen Xer (that would probably not be a smart move politically), the fact that he stands opposed to Boomers makes him a Gen Xer.

Recall the Civil War anomaly as an example of the cycle of generations and turnings bending but not breaking. Could there be a Gen-X leader in a fourth turning? Very possibly. It wouldn't be the same as having a Boomer leader, but remember that the next fourth turning is unlikely to be a purely American event, and there are quite a few Boomerlike global leaders out there.

Originally Posted by Neil Howe

Yes, I'd agree with that--at least two and a half of them, anyway. Economy and Energy, definitely. Environment? With all due deference to our friend Al Gore, it's harder for me to imagine how that can have any sudden near-term impact. The apocalyptic tone with which the environment is now discussed says more about our 4T mood than about the likelihood of future events. Put another way, we would say that large-scale environmental action may well be part of what America (and others) try to do in the 4T. But it's unlikely to trigger the 4T.

Katrina? Though I am more oil obsessed, I can invision saudi arabia going south and global thermonuclear economic collapse.

Question, do you think the millennials will go for a national service? And do you think rebuilding the rail system (to get goods to the hinterland and to move people from suburbs to cities and within cities). Being in south florida rails and weather are big issues for us.

Years ago I had read that high-speed monorails would become the preferred transportation choice by 2015. We now have eight years to go, and do you really feel that monorail would take off here in the US where the car is king? I have come to believe that the US really won't change until economic condition reach the point where we don't have much choice?

S&H, have you guys seen any geographic variations in generational boundaries with in the US? It may just be the result of meaningless, random statistical effects from a small sample size caused by the fact of the small class sizes at my rural high school, but In my experience the first Millie cohort in the rural area I grew up was 1983, the Class of 2000 seemed Xer-ish.

We don't see longer life expectancies as changing the saeculum. Life expectancies have gradually lengthened over the centuries, and especially during the course of the 20th Century, and the saeculum did not seem to be affected by that.

Recall that the saeculum was originally an Etruscan concept, based on the length of a long human life, later transformed into the notion of the Roman Century--defined as 100 years. Throughout human history, there have been very old people, including those in their eighties and nineties. It's true that, today, there are more of them than before. However, apart from the expense of their medical maintenance and other care, people in their eighties and nineties do not today have significantly more influence than they have had at other times in our history. In the current pre-2008 electoral climate, one hears far less about "senior citizens" than one does about young voters, as Millennials replace G.I.s as America's civic-oriented generation.

In fact, today's earlier retirement ages are resulting in people in their sixties and seventies having less influence over some important realms of our society (education, marketing, culture creation), no matter how healthy they are. Look at movies and the rest of the popular culture, which was far more geared toward older (or middle-aged) people from the 1930s through the 1950s than it has been since the 1960s, despite the fact that we now have many more very old people than we did then--and despite the fact that people over 60 (or 50) are far more affluent than they were then, in relation to the young.

No matter what progress we make in human aging, we will still have the same four seasons of life, whose intersection with the seasons of history will continue to produce generations of approximately the current length.

Why has retail become so cookie-cutter bland in an era of rampant individualism? Good question. One answer, we would suggest, is that retail trends may look different in the eyes of different generations. For example, take Starbucks. Boomer CEO Howard Schultz recently did a now-famous interview in which he lamented that the look of many Starbucks shops no longer has the old smell of coffee grounds, with the loose trash and homey, casual feel of the original stores. But most of his Boomer customers still think it's pretty cool--very customized and casual and progressive compared to the old one-size-fits-all "cuppa joe" dishwater they remember from their own parents. Many Millennials, on the other hand, think about and like Starbucks precisely because they see in it something bland and national and standardized. The same goes for Whole Foods Market or Rain Forest Cafe or Amazon or Apple. One might generalize: A successful brand has to be perceived in different ways to different generations.

On the question of Millennials and the auto-based societal infrastructure, this science-focused generation may be capable of inventions, including alternative energy sources or forms of transportation, that we cannot imagine today. One thing we can safely predict is that they will be absorbed with the question of enhancing our societal infrastructure--something many young adults perceive Boomers as having done badly. They point to Katrina, to worsening traffic jams, to residential zoning that allows McMansions, and the like.

Yes, the G.I. Generation grew up with cars, and their lifecycle straddled the entire history of automobiles and the consumer culture that grew up around it. The digital-mobile technologies of today serve much the same purpose with Millennials. Just as G.I.s went "over the top" with the car culture of the 1950s, against which Boomers (rightly) rebelled, it's quite possible that 50ish Millennials will similarly go over the top with whatever their digital-mobile technology-driven society will by then have become. It will be up to their (New Boomer) children to rebel against that, in the next second turning.