3 ms·

The causal start is advancing industrialization. This both reduces fertility rates and favors cities over the countryside. The relation is very consistent over

The causal start is advancing industrialization. This both reduces fertility rates and favors cities over the countryside. The relation is very consistent over many different countries, and it is easy to see what the causal chains are for each of them. >Why is internationalism a practical necessity in cities? Are there no cities in the world with quite ethnically homogenous populations? Have the authors visited eastern European or Russian cities? Or African cities? These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally, than the countryside. Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation, but don't present it so that we can examine it critically.

repolfx 8y ago
I think the first part of your argument is debatable, especially in modern times. In recent eras advancing industrialisation has meant telecoms, the internet, computers. All technologies that allow people to live and work anywhere. Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace for the first time since the pre-industrial era. Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural areas to the cities in the past. It's not so clear it still means that now. And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. You can say those improvements wouldn't have happened without industrialization, but that's just redefining industrialization as progress in general. In which case "cosmopolitanism is caused by progress" becomes the argument: an opinion, surely. These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally, than the countryside. You're talking about interconnectedness, the first thing the article's authors specified, but I was talking about internationalism, the second. The term "interconnectedness" is too vague to discuss; if it means people depending on each other, well, I've seen many claim over the years that cities are isolating and true communities where neighbours rely on each other are a suburban and rural phenomenon. I have no data either way. It seems easier to reason about internationalism, and that claim is dubious. Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation, but don't present it so that we can examine it critically. I didn't pick any specific explanation because there are so many to pick from. For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets "ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting to the concerns that this has caused. Obviously power being held by elites is a feature of many eras in history, has never been popular with the common man, and has nothing in particular to do with population growth or decline.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. But of a very specific sort: improvements in access to contraception. It's also strongly affected by women's access to jobs outside the home. Falling fertility is our great victory over Malthusianism, it should be celebrated more. (Just re-read the article to check something, and isn't it going to a great effort to avoid saying the word "race"?)
- woodandsteel 8y ago
  Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace for the first time since the pre-industrial era. That's very recent, and it effects only a very small portion of the population. Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural areas to the cities in the past. It's not so clear it still means that now. The article is about trends that we have seen so far. You are speculating about the future. And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. Not just healthcare. Having a lot of children is economically beneficial to farm families, it is a great expense for modern urban ones, and so they have greatly reduced how many they have. but I was talking about internationalism Cities are booming because factories and big businesses are located there, and these are all involved in economic activity involving the nation, and usually other nations too. Internationalism is the philosophy that this is a good thing. For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets "ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting to the concerns that this has caused. I agree with that. The thing is, for most of history, wealth was in the land, and the elite were landed aristocrats. With industrialization, wealth has moved largely to cities, and so that is where the elites live, and the people in the countryside have become much poorer, and so they often become populists.

repolfx 8y ago

I think the first part of your argument is debatable, especially in modern times. In recent eras advancing industrialisation has meant telecoms, the internet, computers. All technologies that allow people to live and work anywhere. Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace for the first time since the pre-industrial era. Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural areas to the cities in the past. It's not so clear it still means that now. And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. You can say those improvements wouldn't have happened without industrialization, but that's just redefining industrialization as progress in general. In which case "cosmopolitanism is caused by progress" becomes the argument: an opinion, surely. These cities are far more interconnected, both internally and externally, than the countryside. You're talking about interconnectedness, the first thing the article's authors specified, but I was talking about internationalism, the second. The term "interconnectedness" is too vague to discuss; if it means people depending on each other, well, I've seen many claim over the years that cities are isolating and true communities where neighbours rely on each other are a suburban and rural phenomenon. I have no data either way. It seems easier to reason about internationalism, and that claim is dubious. Also, I hate it when someone claims they have an alternative explanation, but don't present it so that we can examine it critically. I didn't pick any specific explanation because there are so many to pick from. For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets "ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting to the concerns that this has caused. Obviously power being held by elites is a feature of many eras in history, has never been popular with the common man, and has nothing in particular to do with population growth or decline.

pjc50 8y ago
> And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. But of a very specific sort: improvements in access to contraception. It's also strongly affected by women's access to jobs outside the home. Falling fertility is our great victory over Malthusianism, it should be celebrated more. (Just re-read the article to check something, and isn't it going to a great effort to avoid saying the word "race"?)
woodandsteel 8y ago
Working from home or working remotely is now becoming commonplace for the first time since the pre-industrial era. That's very recent, and it effects only a very small portion of the population. Industrialization might have correlated with population movements from rural areas to the cities in the past. It's not so clear it still means that now. The article is about trends that we have seen so far. You are speculating about the future. And as for falling fertility rates, that's surely more related to improvements in healthcare. Not just healthcare. Having a lot of children is economically beneficial to farm families, it is a great expense for modern urban ones, and so they have greatly reduced how many they have. but I was talking about internationalism Cities are booming because factories and big businesses are located there, and these are all involved in economic activity involving the nation, and usually other nations too. Internationalism is the philosophy that this is a good thing. For instance, if we drill into the definition of "populism", whereby it sets "ordinary people" against "elites", the most direct and simple explanation is that maybe in recent times there have been transfers of power away from ordinary people towards elites, and "populism" is simply politicians reacting to the concerns that this has caused. I agree with that. The thing is, for most of history, wealth was in the land, and the elite were landed aristocrats. With industrialization, wealth has moved largely to cities, and so that is where the elites live, and the people in the countryside have become much poorer, and so they often become populists.