> Large numbers of people are associated with cities, and financial poverty is reasonable proxy for quality of life in a city context, on average. Exactly. Thi

> Large numbers of people are associated with cities, and financial poverty is reasonable proxy for quality of life in a city context, on average. Exactly. Thing is, cities didn't emerge out of themselves. The underlying dynamic is the Agricultural Revolution of 12.000 years ago. Moreover, I argue that we're with billions today less because of our own individual volition, but thanks to the invention of another agricultural revolution spawned by the Industrial Revolution: synthetic fertilizer, machinery, etc. The emergence of cities and metropolitan areas is caused by another dynamic: specialization. If you don't have to gather / hunt food, you can become a specialist. Money and finance are belief systems that helped galvanize that dynamic. As such, urbanization is the collective result of an individual adaptation strategy: get close to a large group of people with lots of demands for specialists. This ranges from doctors to factory workers. The fundamental problem with poverty, then, is that the survival of an individual doesn't depend on social cohesion in a small tribe. It depends largely on market dynamics of supply and demand for specialist labour. Moreover, the cost of switching between specialisms is prohibitively high (i.e. factory worker becomes lawyer). Yuval Harari laments the emergence of agriculture and cities as a disaster for Humanity in his seminal work "Sapiens". He makes a worthwhile point to consider. > Additionally, the traditional tribe scenario never supported large numbers of people, which is what is measured by the average life expectancy. Ultimately, there is absolutely no moral argument or reason, outside of our own thinking, to be found in nature that obligates us to become a multi-billion species of which each individual should live according to European / Western living standards. Equally, there's no argument, outside of our own thinking, to be found in nature that says each and everyone is entitled to live at least 80 years; or have biological kids. One can aspire and hope that will happen, but reality just doesn't give out any guarantees. That type existential precariousness and uncertainty is well understood in small tribes and deeply ingrained in their cultures. Now, to be clear, I don't want to make that case that living in small tribes is better then living in cities. Absolutely not. My point is that both are vastly different ways of living life and comparing them from the vantage point "one is better then the other", simply doesn't make much if any sense. What we can do is try to understand that tribal / traditional living is just as valid as a survival strategy and comes with it's own advantages and downsides. Hence why I vehemently disagree with Harari when he laments agriculture and cities. That's just one-sided value attribution. If we want to live in a society that forcefully favors large metropolitan cities, large industries, optimized specialization and so on: fine. But then we have to accept that poverty will be a thing and there will always be large swathes of the living who have to make do with the left-overs.