Slashdot Log In
World Population Becomes More Urban Than Rural
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu May 24, 2007 10:02 PM
from the country-sprawls dept.
from the country-sprawls dept.
biohack writes "A major demographic shift took place on Wednesday, May 23, 2007: For the first time in human history, the earth's population is more urban than rural. According to scientists from North Carolina State University and the University of Georgia, on that day, a predicted global urban population of 3,303,992,253 exceeded that of 3,303,866,404 rural people. In the US, the tipping point from a majority rural to a majority urban population came early in the late 1910s."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Earth.... (Score:5, Funny)
Our new business plan: (Score:5, Funny)
2. Create new "technology" religion.
3. Watch the old Galactic Empire crumble from within.
4. Get taken over by The Mule.
5. Find the Second Foundation.
6. ??
7. Write Foundation's Edge due to publisher pressure, and profit!!
Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:5, Interesting)
Does it matter? The population density between rural and urban is arbitrary. You could arbitrarily define any number for rural or urban. From one definition on the USDA website [usda.gov]:
Conversely, the Bureau identified rural parts of incorporated towns whose city limits are very broad and include some thinly settled territory. Thus, if a town of 5,000 people has 500 residents living in thinly settled portions, the 500 are classified as rural and the urban population would be just 4,500.
Re:Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:5, Funny)
I grew up in a neighboring city (Defiance).
Re:Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:4, Insightful)
Most important qualifications for the predicate urban are in my view the type of economic activities that take place there, and the central function relative to the area around it. Rural means pastoral or agricultural activities. Suburbs are obviously neither urban nor rural: they are suburban. Nothing happens there. And wilderness is not rural as well. The notion that space can be neatly divided into urban and rural only ever applied to the Western European plains anyway, and has been past its sell by date since we tore down city walls and started using cars.
Population density has little to do with it. Even populations that survive on subsistence farming alone can reach impressive population densities: a family needs about an acre to survive. Take the fertile regions in Rwanda as an example. Rural areas in one country can have a higher population density than suburbs in another, and some urban areas have no inhabitants at all, only shops, offices, etc.
Rounding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:5, Funny)
Just take a snapshot before the census! Duh!
Re:Stats all the way to the single digits (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sig figs don't work that way (Score:5, Interesting)
In uncertainty analysis there is something known as implied uncertainty it is the uncertainty of a number given by the instrument that measured the number. 53,103,102 just as a number has an implied uncertainty of +-.5 which for people is clearly bunk, so for something that partials don't exist the number appears exact. 53,000,000 has implied uncertainty of +-500,000 this show considerable range of possible numbers. The first number is implied by the second, but the second reflects a much less accurate measurement.
It makes me cringe when I see numbers like 53,103,102 +- 623,103, that number is clearly crap. They admitted that there is a large uncertainty, but the excessive significant figures implies a high degree of confidence in the numbers. If you understand the normal distribution you would know that it is safe to call that same number 53,100,000 +-620,000 because the true number has a high probability of being within that range
Obligatory Civ reference (Score:5, Funny)
Early in the late 1910s? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Early in the late 1910s? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see what was so hard to understand about that...
Eddie
Re: (Score:2)
As in the "late" Dent Arthur Dent. It's a threat.
--Dangerous? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dangerous? (Score:5, Insightful)
How about I go do the donkey cart and beans thing when the "fragile infrastructure" actually crumbles on me?
Re:Dangerous? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's hear it for urbanism! (Score:5, Interesting)
A city is also quite a lot more efficient than having the same number of people spread out in small communities over a vastly larger area. This goes both for providing seeded services and for pollution - it's far easier and more efficient to process the concentrated waste water from a million people in one set of facilities than try to process the same amount spread out over many small, disconnected systems. Critical services like high-quality health care, communications infrastructure and so on is also much more efficient - or only doable at all in some cases - in an urban environment. Having 200k people taking public transport to work every morning (and an equivalent number walking or bicycling) is a lot better for everybody than having those same people take individual cars. Osaka is a good example, with just about a quarter driving, a quarter using public transport and a quarter walking or bicycling (the last quarter is split up into combinations of more than one mode). By contrast, in a rural environment, the vast majority would list car or motorbike as their mode.
So stop playing in the mud and come to the city! We're open all night!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's hear it for urbanism! (Score:5, Insightful)
As for water quality, well I think that may be a matter of taste; I've never gotten sick from any water from a tap, so I can't answer that one for you.
And finally, artificial light, in the modern day, burns up the least amount of energy of our various electrical appliance. Things like computers, washers, dryers and others burn up 100 times or more the electricty in an hour than the average modern day light.
Also, take note that since more city dwellers use mass-transit, they drive fewer vehicles per capita than rural livers. Also, fewer work at jobs that require motorized vehicles; if you live on a farm, not only do you burn fuel driving when you need supplies (usually a gas-guzzling truck, though you do need it) but you burn it when you run your tractor or the variety of other gas-powered farm equipment that you may have.
Finally, generally I've found that opponents of mass-transit tend to be opposed to it more due to the fact that they don't want to pay for it, with "it won't be used" as an excuse, rather than a solid argument. Take, for example, the TRAX light rail system put in Salt Lake City, Utah a few years ago; many said it wouldn't be used, but I've found that the route I regularly ride is packed in each car when I use it. What's more, a variety of studies have found that public transporation unclogs highways that those who don't use public transportation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
or is it urban sprawl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:or is it urban sprawl (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
vast cities (Score:5, Interesting)
Millions of people drive to work at 65 miles per hour on giant freeways only one wrong move away from dieing an unexpected death. These freeways are spectacular monuments to our society. They are closest most of us will ever get to flying under our own control and they are what make a giant city possible. Crossing a large city takes over an hour at freeway speeds. The scenery of giant buildings and thousand of other buildings and residences rushing by seemingly endlessly is beautiful in a way.
I'm glad the world's population is more urban than rural. cities rock.
Re:vast cities (Score:5, Insightful)
Condescending and Elitist (Score:3, Insightful)
What can the "urban majority do for the poor rural people"? That sounds awfully condescending and elitist, and assumes not only whether they should run the lives of others, but how to.
Instead, why don't we consider systems that have worked successfully. Those of the Electorial College [wikipedia.org] and US Senate [wikipedia.org], where rural states are represented and protected from exploitation, from the larger populations of urban states.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Condescending and Elitist (Score:5, Funny)
You're right.
There is only one problem though. They seriously screwed up when they made California a state. California is 163,707 square miles. Rhode Island is 1,545 square miles. 163,707 / 1,545 is 106. California is big enough to have been made into 106 states instead of just one state. Then Californians would have 212 senators (enough for 2/3 control of the senate... not merely enough votes alone to pass or block any law or any decision in the senate but even enough alone for a senatorial overturn of a presidential veto). Californians would have 318++ electoral votes, almost enough alone to elect the president (in that electorial college it would take 400-odd votes to elect the president).
You're right that the electoral college is a FANTASTIC... nay.... the electoral college is a PERFECT system. They just royally screwed up when drawing state lines. Anyone with half a brain should have known better than to draw California as just one state.... anyone with half a brain should have seen and seized the opportunity to grab almost total control of the US government.
It's too late to do anything about California.... but there is still a good opportunity that may come up. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but for a long time there has been simmering back-burner serious discussion of the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico officially gaining statehood status. The population of Puerto Rico is nearly 8 times the population of Wyoming. If Puerto Rico does join the union, I say we should look at whatever internal districting already exists in Puerto Rico and let those districts independently vote on whether they want to join the union, and let them join as 8 separate states. If Puerto Rico joins the union I say they should get 16 senators and 24 electoral votes. Woohoo I love the Electoral College! It makes perfect sense! The Electoral College allows us to so much better represent and protect Puerto Ricans from exploitation from other states by letting them join as 8 separate states.
Nymz, my brother, my compatriot, I am so pleased to count you as a friend and electoral ally. That you and I both see how perfect and logical the Electoral College is, that we both see how perfect it is for better representing and protecting people... that everyone should get as much representation and protection as possible, and that if and when Puerto Rico joins the union that they should get as much representation and protection as possible... that if and when Puerto Rico joins the union that it should get as many extra imaginary lines drawn across it as possible... at a minimum enough extra imaginary lines for them to join as at least 8 states.
Yes, because where imaginary lines are drawn around people and how many imaginary lines are drawn around people is the KEY to giving people better representation and better protection. The Electoral College is the KEY to giving some Americans several times as much representation and several times as much protection as other Americans.
-
predicted? (Score:3, Interesting)
"predicted"?? Does that mean they think it's going to happen sometime in the future, or that some time in the past they thought it was going to happen now (ok, day before yesterday)?
Redefining "major" (Score:5, Funny)
That "major" shift: One guy left his house in the country to move to a house in the city! Perhaps five. It's a landmark occasion.
--Okay everyone! (Score:4, Insightful)
Out where there's fresh air and open spaces.
And cows...
And...dirt...
And broadband is more myth than reality...
And even phone service is barely out of the "two cans and a piece of string" era!
Uhhhh...Forget I said anything. I'm just going to go beat myself about the head and shoulders with an old solid steel XT-style keyboard...
Yes, we can trust this analysis. (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory Population Warning (Score:3, Funny)
Human habitats... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember what is says on the Georgia Guidestones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones [wikipedia.org]
* Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
[forced abortion and sterilization of reproduction offenders]
* Guide reproduction wisely--improving fitness and diversity.
[selection of the fittest, neutering/castration of the less desirable]
* Unite humanity with a living new language.
[
* Rule passion--faith--tradition--and all things with tempered reason.
[it's okay no matter how cruel and inhumane]
* Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
[and install a world court over those who might otherwise be free]
* Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
[and a world army that will put down dissent fast]
* Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
[don't elevate excessive amounts of serfs to capo status]
* Balance personal rights with social duties.
[you bet!]
* Prize truth--beauty--love--seeking harmony with the infinite.
[Right. Your infinite or mine?]
* Be not a cancer on the earth--Leave room for nature--Leave room for nature.
[Humans are cancer and you are the cure. Right]
So why don't we get tax credit for renting? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who rent tend to pay more in rent, get nothing for it, and in the long run have nothing to show for their cost of living. There are no tax breaks in any way for those who rent, which makes the cost of living higher, while having less to show for it. If the majority of people are living in an urban environment, that implies that the majority of people are renting, not owning where they live. So, why is the attitude of government always focused on things that would help home owners, rather than on the majority, which ends up renting?
If the government wanted to really boost the economy(which would improve tax revenues), there would be a shift to provide tax deductions for those who rent. The money people save would allow them to save up for a house, which would help reduce the NEED for social security(in the long run). Help raise the social standing of the low and middle income people, and there will be more non-credit spending. Renters need tax breaks too.
Re:Hyperbolic Slashdot text (Score:5, Insightful)
Could happen. For instance, bird-flu or limited nuclear warfare, which decimates urban populations with much less impact on rural populations. This would leave the earth with more rural than urban people. Then, when the urban population bounces back, the 'earth's population will become more urban than rural' for the *second* time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If all jobs move online, no one would want to pay 30% of their salaries for cramped apartmen
Re:Hyperbolic Slashdot text (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is living your life how you like. You like sleeping on the porch. I like having a bunch of stuff to do within walking distance. If you think the city is just a "mass produced, commoditized beast" then you're just as prejudiced as the stereotypical urban dweller who thinks everyone in the country has three teeth and marries their cousins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who is gonna milk the cows (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4275702675.html [linuxdevices.com]
Re:Another way to look at it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this is impossible, by definition.
No, by no means is it impossible.
If group A comprises 30% of the population, while groups B, C, D, E, F and G comprise 15, 15, 14, 13, 12, and 11% respectively, then while the majority of the population are part of minority groups, they are still minority groups, as each group comprises less than half of the population.
However to assume in this case that the remaining group (let's just call them "white males" for argument sake) then constitutes the majority would be a logical fallacy, though a commonly accepted one. In a political sense this does in fact constitute a simple majority when comparing the discrete groups, but often people think of these things in a sense of "most people". "Most people" in this case actually associate themselves with some defined "minority group" hence disturbing the distinction.
To further complicate things, consider that these concepts of majority and minority are defined and displayed in different scales, and will inherently represent differently in any demographic modification. Enter certain areas of business or society and "white male" is actually a majority. Enter another one and "white male" is an aberration. IE, Donald Trump is, in his field, a member of a relative majority, while Marshall Mathers represents, in his field, a minority.
Race relations are complicated? As a member of a (racial) group that has been generally discredited in this area, I can make no claims to expertise or Clue (TM). I can only speak about simple things like math.