It is official, over half of the world has been urbanized- meaning that there are more people who live in cities than in rural areas. According to United Nations Population Fund report, by next year, more than half the world’s population will live in towns and cities. That’s over 3.3 billion people. That number is expect to balloon to almost 5 billion by the year 2030.
Such an outcome can have dramatic effects on our futures. For centuries now, the move from rural areas to suburbs and inner cities has been the social movement. However, with more people officially living in cities, is it plausible to think that this whole thing could reverse itself over the next few centuries?
Some people look at the city as a negative phenomenon. Citing the city as a place filled with pollution, poverty, and lack of space. But in reality, is this really the cause of the city, or just a misunderstood correlation? Afterall, is it better for a poor person to live out in the woods and to try to start a life of agriculture and self-sustaining with little or no capital? Of course it isn’t. Besides, the GDP per capita is much greater in cities than it is in rural areas. Yes, a lot of that can be attributed upper class, but most of it is because the people in the middle class are result of the increased economic mobility that cities allow for.
Is pollution really greater in a city when you account for the pollution caused per person, and the fact that things are created in mass quantities thereby eliminating much of excess waste that can be derived from creating for one’s individual family, or even just themselves?
Moreover, as for a lack of space, that is a choice that people make, and it is a choice with way more benefits than detriments. Being confined to live in more dense communities forces people to interact more, and interaction is the root of creation, which is what has allowed developed nations to become what they are.
So you must ask yourselves, are the trivial non-issues really worth declining the sizes of cities?
Some people will argue that we will have no other choice.
There are those who see the Baby Boomer era that forced residents into cities, as something that will reverse itself, citing that it is a simple case of what goes up most go down.
As Robert Brugemann of the University of Illinois at Chicago notes, “In virtually every affluent nation on Earth, the old 19th century industrial cities have exploded outward, allowing densities [of cities] to plummet at the core as residents move further out into low-density suburbia…The city of Paris today has a third fewer residents than it did in 1907.”
Is it that simple though? What could possible cause people across the world to leave the cities to back into rural areas and spread out? Can people, especially in
I don’t think so. I think that creation, innovation, relations and forward movement relies on the fact that people live in proximity with one another. The very idea that two people who do not know each other can work together everyday in order to produce and contribute to the sustaining of the economy is vital to the way of the world. Yes, it would be nice if every family could fend for itself. But what price do we pay when we no longer rely on one another?