2 ms·
What I want to know is how it is possible that we have comments claiming the title is misleading/overblown, or that this is a matter of definitions and no big d
by vanderZwan 8y ago
What I want to know is how it is possible that we have comments claiming the title is misleading/overblown, or that this is a matter of definitions and no big deal. I'm sorry, but what article have you read exactly?
Current estimates puts urbanisation at 55% of all humans, and it's expected to grow to 70% by 2050, more than thirty years from now. And these researchers now claim the current level of urbanisation is already over 84%.
In which field would an error of more than half the current estimate not be a huge deal? Or already being 14% over the projected number of a generation away?
As the article mentions, these numbers matted a whole lot to policy makers and international decision making. It may feel abstract and uninteresting to the average nerd but this stuff has serious consequences.
- swebs 8y agoThe title right now is: >Researchers contest widely-accepted United Nations' predictions on urban population growth Which is a pretty good description. About an hour ago, the title was: >‘Everything we’ve heard about global urbanization turns out to be wrong’ - researchers Which is ridiculous clickbait. Since your post is only a few minutes old, you're probably commenting on the new title, whereas others are commenting on the old title.
- vanderZwan 8y agoThank you for clarifying. EDIT: even so, it's still a direct quote of one of the researchers, and indicated as such in the title. Clickbaity, but not misleading. Plus, adding up all the issues raised about how urbanization has been measured so far, all the in which ways politics muddles up the data, and the resulting gigantic error in measurement together, the problem does seem so fundamental that I don't find the quote that overblown either.