7 ms·
That’s not true at all. For most of human history, cities did not actually reproduce enough to maintain their own population. It’s only into the 19th century w
by village-idiot 8y ago
That’s not true at all.
For most of human history, cities did not actually reproduce enough to maintain their own population. It’s only into the 19th century when cities start to become self sustaining.
If there wasn’t pressure to move to the city then they would’ve collapsed millenia ago. It’s not like there’s this permanent cohort of city weirdos living in the great urban areas, those areas continue to draw in people from the surrounding area.
- emodendroket 8y agoThe modern economy has a much bigger role for cities, and the percentage of the population living in cities or metro areas is historically high. So in fact I do think it is true.
- village-idiot 8y agoYes, urbanization is very high right now, although most people underestimate the degree of urbanization in ancient civilizations. This has less to do with a change in cities than it has to do with the precipitous drop in demand for rural labor of all sorts, imho.
- emodendroket 8y agoI'm not sure how you tease those two out, as they're kind of mutually reinforcing.
- village-idiot 8y agoThat’s the nature of dynamic systems. You probably cannot tease those apart. The overall point is that there has always been a drive to push people into cities (otherwise they’d collapse due to mortality rates). The overall rate of urbanism and urban change has fluctuated over the millenia, but it’s hardly new in any meaningful way. Hence my assertion that anyone living close to a growing metropolis should not be surprised if the density overtakes them. They might not like it, that’s perfectly reasonable. But expecting things to not change in your area only is actually quite unreasonable in the long run.