4 ms·

Cities were historically unhealthy, etc, etc, as well. Yet people kept moving to them. So "most people can't afford to [leave civiliation]" is far from new. Per

Cities were historically unhealthy, etc, etc, as well. Yet people kept moving to them. So "most people can't afford to [leave civiliation]" is far from new. Perhaps the life everyone has been fleeing to get to cities was never what you think it is for most.

ramblenode 4y ago
The movement to cities was more likely the result of an arms race rather than preference. Most anthropological evidence points to deterioration in quality of life (e.g. diet, height, disease, teeth, inequality) when comparing hunter-gatherers and city dwellers. Larger populations, specialization of labor, and fortifications made city-states militarily superior to small bands of hunter-gatherers and allowed cities to dominate a surrounding region (at least until the modern horse). When a region was depleted of wild game then cities and their croplands were the most reliable source of food. Armies from city states would not infrequently raid and capture smaller groups of humans and bring them back to cities as slaves. So cities were likely a forced choice, as smaller nomadic groups were forceably absorbed into the domains of city-states or repelled toward less hospitable lands.
watwut 4y ago
People moved to cities for economic opportunities.
- majormajor 4y ago
  "People moved to cities for economic opportunities" and "people can't financially afford to leave the cities" seem like just the glass half full / glass half empty versions of the same thing. Put it one way it's bad, put it one way its good. It's a choice with tradeoffs - I'm just pointing out that those tradeoffs aren't some uniquely new "collapse of our society" thing.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    This is an interesting revelation. Thanks for framing it this way. Riffing: I think there’s a middle phrasing similar to “cities are the most efficient allocation of resources we have yet invented.” Similar to the “democracy is the least bad system of government yet invented.” There’s some corollary to survivorship bias at play here as well. Cities are an apparently natural consequence of human civilization so we know a lot about their flaws. But civilizations that didn’t migrate toward cities either failed or records of their existence was lost.
    - watwut 4y ago
      Except that those two are NOT just two ways to frame the are thing. They literally mean much different things.
  - watwut 4y ago
    The difference is that when people "move to city", it means the village where they are from offers them even poorer conditions. Less food, less work, lower pay. "People can't afford leaving city" suggest there is active price to be paid for ability to be somewhere - transport, house elsewhere being too expensive or some such. It does not even suggets opportunity cost. Otherwise said, first sentence means people move to city because it is better for them economically. Second does not say anything about whether it is good for you, just that moving away would cost too much. Also, some people stayed in economicaly bad places, because they could not afford to move to the better place. Transport and initial housing pay was too much.

ramblenode 4y ago

The movement to cities was more likely the result of an arms race rather than preference. Most anthropological evidence points to deterioration in quality of life (e.g. diet, height, disease, teeth, inequality) when comparing hunter-gatherers and city dwellers. Larger populations, specialization of labor, and fortifications made city-states militarily superior to small bands of hunter-gatherers and allowed cities to dominate a surrounding region (at least until the modern horse). When a region was depleted of wild game then cities and their croplands were the most reliable source of food. Armies from city states would not infrequently raid and capture smaller groups of humans and bring them back to cities as slaves. So cities were likely a forced choice, as smaller nomadic groups were forceably absorbed into the domains of city-states or repelled toward less hospitable lands.

watwut 4y ago

People moved to cities for economic opportunities.

majormajor 4y ago
"People moved to cities for economic opportunities" and "people can't financially afford to leave the cities" seem like just the glass half full / glass half empty versions of the same thing. Put it one way it's bad, put it one way its good. It's a choice with tradeoffs - I'm just pointing out that those tradeoffs aren't some uniquely new "collapse of our society" thing.
- mulmen 4y ago
  This is an interesting revelation. Thanks for framing it this way. Riffing: I think there’s a middle phrasing similar to “cities are the most efficient allocation of resources we have yet invented.” Similar to the “democracy is the least bad system of government yet invented.” There’s some corollary to survivorship bias at play here as well. Cities are an apparently natural consequence of human civilization so we know a lot about their flaws. But civilizations that didn’t migrate toward cities either failed or records of their existence was lost.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Except that those two are NOT just two ways to frame the are thing. They literally mean much different things.
- watwut 4y ago
  The difference is that when people "move to city", it means the village where they are from offers them even poorer conditions. Less food, less work, lower pay. "People can't afford leaving city" suggest there is active price to be paid for ability to be somewhere - transport, house elsewhere being too expensive or some such. It does not even suggets opportunity cost. Otherwise said, first sentence means people move to city because it is better for them economically. Second does not say anything about whether it is good for you, just that moving away would cost too much. Also, some people stayed in economicaly bad places, because they could not afford to move to the better place. Transport and initial housing pay was too much.