Researchers contest widely-accepted UN's predictions on urban population growth(thisisplace.org)
thisisplace.org
Researchers contest widely-accepted UN's predictions on urban population growth
http://www.thisisplace.org/i/?id=0150beca-e3f5-47e0-bc74-9ccc5ef1db8a
65 comments
The title right now is:
>Researchers contest widely-accepted United Nations' predictions on urban population growth
Which is a pretty good description. About an hour ago, the title was:
>‘Everything we’ve heard about global urbanization turns out to be wrong’ - researchers
Which is ridiculous clickbait. Since your post is only a few minutes old, you're probably commenting on the new title, whereas others are commenting on the old title.
>Researchers contest widely-accepted United Nations' predictions on urban population growth
Which is a pretty good description. About an hour ago, the title was:
>‘Everything we’ve heard about global urbanization turns out to be wrong’ - researchers
Which is ridiculous clickbait. Since your post is only a few minutes old, you're probably commenting on the new title, whereas others are commenting on the old title.
Thank you for clarifying.
EDIT: even so, it's still a direct quote of one of the researchers, and indicated as such in the title. Clickbaity, but not misleading.
Plus, adding up all the issues raised about how urbanization has been measured so far, all the in which ways politics muddles up the data, and the resulting gigantic error in measurement together, the problem does seem so fundamental that I don't find the quote that overblown either.
EDIT: even so, it's still a direct quote of one of the researchers, and indicated as such in the title. Clickbaity, but not misleading.
Plus, adding up all the issues raised about how urbanization has been measured so far, all the in which ways politics muddles up the data, and the resulting gigantic error in measurement together, the problem does seem so fundamental that I don't find the quote that overblown either.
I'm not fond of this title but did find the article to be intriguing.
I didn't see a paper or anything linked, so at the moment it remains a superficial interview. I'd like to know more about which remote sensing techniques they're using and how they're classifying population. Like the dissenter in the article, I wonder about informal settlements which can sometimes make up the majority of an urban centre. Do their models include these? The implication seems to be no, but there isn't much to go on.
I didn't see a paper or anything linked, so at the moment it remains a superficial interview. I'd like to know more about which remote sensing techniques they're using and how they're classifying population. Like the dissenter in the article, I wonder about informal settlements which can sometimes make up the majority of an urban centre. Do their models include these? The implication seems to be no, but there isn't much to go on.
Here the author being interviewed gives a short summary of the project:
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
Details in the method can be found in a 2016 report about the "Atlas of the human planet" project, where they produced something called the "Global Human Settlement Layer" (there are a lot of plots labelled GHSL in the talk linked above). Starts at page 22, infographic at page 26: https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Atlas_2016.pdf?t=147...
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
Details in the method can be found in a 2016 report about the "Atlas of the human planet" project, where they produced something called the "Global Human Settlement Layer" (there are a lot of plots labelled GHSL in the talk linked above). Starts at page 22, infographic at page 26: https://ghsl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Atlas_2016.pdf?t=147...
Super valuable, thanks.
For new readers, the HN title has changed. Since the majority of comments do point out the title specifically do know that it was for a previous title.
I can not understand why HN mods do this. Doesn't matter if X is a better title than Y, changing it is by far worse than either - at least once it has hit the front page. And everyone that has already clicked on the discussion will click on it again with the new title because naturally one would believe it was another related article spawned by the first one.
I can not understand why HN mods do this. Doesn't matter if X is a better title than Y, changing it is by far worse than either - at least once it has hit the front page. And everyone that has already clicked on the discussion will click on it again with the new title because naturally one would believe it was another related article spawned by the first one.
Or HN could gain the ability to pin a mod note at the top of the comments.
"We changed the title from Aliens Ate Your Code to Problems with Managing Remote Contract Programmers."
"We changed the title from Aliens Ate Your Code to Problems with Managing Remote Contract Programmers."
Doesn't solve the problem of rediscovering it because of the new title.
If so I'd rather have the pin just say "We think a better/more descriptive title would have been X".
If so I'd rather have the pin just say "We think a better/more descriptive title would have been X".
[deleted]
The article doesn't give their threshold for "urban". From satellite imagery, you can measure what percentage of an area is roofs and roads. That's an objective measure of urbanization. But they don't tell you what their threshold is. A graph of percentage of area covered by roofs and roads would be more useful. Then you're not arguing over defintiions.
This is a good problem for a classifier. A big-data problem for some grad student. A good thesis project. Or an overlay on Google Earth.
This metric has some correlation with population density. It's not direct; multistory buildings get underrated, and large greenhouses might be mis-identified as an urban feature. Another job for a classifier.
This is a good problem for a classifier. A big-data problem for some grad student. A good thesis project. Or an overlay on Google Earth.
This metric has some correlation with population density. It's not direct; multistory buildings get underrated, and large greenhouses might be mis-identified as an urban feature. Another job for a classifier.
The definition for urban is a grid cell, one kilometre wide, with 1500 people. A "urban centre" is a contiguous collection of urban grid cells that totals at least 50 000 people.
A city is then the set of municipalities that have at least 50% of their population in that urban centre.
I think the article is just summer filler, the results are at least a year old. Here Dijkstra talks about them:
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
A city is then the set of municipalities that have at least 50% of their population in that urban centre.
I think the article is just summer filler, the results are at least a year old. Here Dijkstra talks about them:
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
This primarily seems like a matter of definitions, no? Humans congregate, so villages tend to expand over time. Apparently there are different definitions to what an urban area is around the world, which to me seems kind of reasonable in itself as conditions vary.
But yeah, if you take photos from space, it clearly shows most of Earth's land area isn't actually occupied by humans dwelling there. Most of the humans have apparently congregated into what we now like to call urban areas, for which there may or may not be a new definition. Great.
But yeah, if you take photos from space, it clearly shows most of Earth's land area isn't actually occupied by humans dwelling there. Most of the humans have apparently congregated into what we now like to call urban areas, for which there may or may not be a new definition. Great.
Definitions do have implications but, yeah.
A lot of people hear urban and think Manhattan, San Francisco, central London, etc. The reality in the US (where 80% of the population is "urban") is heavily suburban. The town where I live surrounded by 100 acres with 2 or 3 other houses is also considered urban. I'm not going to be walking to a corner grocery store or taking mass transit anywhere.
A lot of people hear urban and think Manhattan, San Francisco, central London, etc. The reality in the US (where 80% of the population is "urban") is heavily suburban. The town where I live surrounded by 100 acres with 2 or 3 other houses is also considered urban. I'm not going to be walking to a corner grocery store or taking mass transit anywhere.
> The town where I live surrounded by 100 acres with 2 or 3 other houses is also considered urban
That’s not urban. US gov defines <1000/sq mi as rural. This works out to about 2/3 acre/person. So either you live in a rural town or there is a much denser part of the town offsetting your hundred acres.
That’s not urban. US gov defines <1000/sq mi as rural. This works out to about 2/3 acre/person. So either you live in a rural town or there is a much denser part of the town offsetting your hundred acres.
Definitions are usually important though, because they show up whenever one speaks of rights for example.
The context Lewis Dijkstra operates in is that of global development goals, so trying to improve the lives of people across the world by seeing who has it bad. Obviously having varying definitions is simply fatal to that effort.
He explains: > For example, a narrow definition focussed on the city centre will lead to poor scores on air quality and the presence of open or green space, but it will give better scores for access to public transport. Also measuring changes over time will be influenced by where the boundary is drawn as most growth occurs at the fringes of a city.
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
The context Lewis Dijkstra operates in is that of global development goals, so trying to improve the lives of people across the world by seeing who has it bad. Obviously having varying definitions is simply fatal to that effort.
He explains: > For example, a narrow definition focussed on the city centre will lead to poor scores on air quality and the presence of open or green space, but it will give better scores for access to public transport. Also measuring changes over time will be influenced by where the boundary is drawn as most growth occurs at the fringes of a city.
https://unhabitat.org/the-tale-of-broadville-and-narrowtown-...
The first time I flew in an airplane, from North Carolina to Michigan, I was amazed that I saw no portion of land that was completely undeveloped.
I was amazed when I flew into Phoenix at night that so much of the desert was completely undeveloped. Like at night once you get outside the city it's just absolute blackness. It was so dark I thought we were over a lake or something.
You're flying over a lot of farm country on that route. Fly over large portions of the West and large areas are much more sparse (though you still see roads, etc.)
Not to forget, in many rural areas in developed countries, more and more houses are abandoned. Next of kin is not interested in moving to there relatives house in the country side.
As technology improves, fewer people are required to work on farms. Lack of work then drives people towards urban areas. Globalization and automation are affecting the world in ways that are difficult to predict. I see something dramatic happening in the next 15 years as wages stagnate, inflation rises and wealth is concentrated in the top .1% of the worlds population.
As technology improves, fewer people are required to work in offices. I predict people moving back to smaller towns with cheaper towns, while working remotely and achieving a much better quality of life for a given salary.
I would like to contest the idea of living in rural areas as having a higher quality of life.
As an analogy, we live in houses with refrigerators because this is a higher quality of life than farming or foraging for food and huddling under trees to get out of the rain.
We live in concentrated environments because walking down the street is a higher quality of life than needing to travel tens of kilometers to buy necessities. A smaller house is easier to maintain and clean.
As an analogy, we live in houses with refrigerators because this is a higher quality of life than farming or foraging for food and huddling under trees to get out of the rain.
We live in concentrated environments because walking down the street is a higher quality of life than needing to travel tens of kilometers to buy necessities. A smaller house is easier to maintain and clean.
I think you're assuming that American rural areas are the only kind of rural area possible. Rural areas in other parts of the world (including mine) look much different than US ones.
I said necessities instead of specifying food or clothes because for some people, items which are hard to impossible to find in small towns can be considered necessities for a contented existence. Similarly, necessities might be friends with a shared (rare) interest that you might have to drive for hours to meet with outside of concentrated urban environments. I struggled over how to word it and I guess I failed. I was trying to get at the point that living in a city can easily broaden what you consider to be essential.
If I was only considering American style urban vs. rural environments, the notion of being able to walk to a grocery store in an urban environment wouldn't be true either (for suburbs).
If I was only considering American style urban vs. rural environments, the notion of being able to walk to a grocery store in an urban environment wouldn't be true either (for suburbs).
As someone from a small town (what I meant by "rural"), I find socializing much easier there than in the big city. In the city, it's much harder to meet new people, where in a small town everybody knows everybody else.
That has its own disadvantages, but I think the social/communal ties are definitely stronger in small towns.
That has its own disadvantages, but I think the social/communal ties are definitely stronger in small towns.
How so?
They're denser towns with various shops for the essentials, so you don't have to drive for kilometers to get necessities, houses are on average significantly smaller, etc. They basically look like semi-suburban neighborhoods in big US cities (ie neighborhoods not in the city center with skyscrapers/etc).
That's not really rural. Rural is specifically defined as the areas outside towns and cities. The fact that you don't live in a metropolis doesn't mean you live in a rural area.
In the US, a population density greater than 999/sq mile is urban.
In the US, a population density greater than 999/sq mile is urban.
Kind of like North Seattle.
In other countries suburban villages have been growing for centuries before cars became available (at least in parts of Europe). So, one can live in these villages without a car and can expect some level of public transportation.
> We live in concentrated environments because walking down the street is a higher quality of life than needing to travel tens of kilometers to buy necessities. A smaller house is easier to maintain and clean.
I see this sentiment often on HN, but so far I have not seen strong evidence to support it other than anecdotes. Have there been studies that show that most people would prefer to live in dense cities if employment wasn't a major deciding factor?
I see this sentiment often on HN, but so far I have not seen strong evidence to support it other than anecdotes. Have there been studies that show that most people would prefer to live in dense cities if employment wasn't a major deciding factor?
What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. In other words, I'm sorry but I don't have any study to provide you. Probably such a study cannot exist, since it would be unethical to perform the sort of double blind study (needed to separate correlation from causation ) involving humans, transportation and employment.
Observationally, people are moving to bigger cities, I think this is common enough knowledge to not require a citation.
Observationally, people are moving to bigger cities, I think this is common enough knowledge to not require a citation.
I don’t think it has to be dense cities like Tokyo. Plenty of suburbia in US. God I love suburbia.
"God I love suburbia."
It gives me a lot of hope to hear that there are people who do like that kind of thing, given how many folks I know who live in such situations.
Personally, I don't like it-- at least in Texas it's the worst of all worlds: everything is far enough apart that you still need to drive most places in a car (and public transportation / biking are afterthoughts) but you're still living almost on top of each other.
But if folks like it, good on them. I'm trying to figure out how to get out of it. I like being in places like manhattan where I can get on a subway and access some much amazing things, and I like to be out in the hills where have some space and quite. But that in-between space isn't good for me, and that's not taking into account the various cultural and economic issues that I find in living in "suburbia".
It gives me a lot of hope to hear that there are people who do like that kind of thing, given how many folks I know who live in such situations.
Personally, I don't like it-- at least in Texas it's the worst of all worlds: everything is far enough apart that you still need to drive most places in a car (and public transportation / biking are afterthoughts) but you're still living almost on top of each other.
But if folks like it, good on them. I'm trying to figure out how to get out of it. I like being in places like manhattan where I can get on a subway and access some much amazing things, and I like to be out in the hills where have some space and quite. But that in-between space isn't good for me, and that's not taking into account the various cultural and economic issues that I find in living in "suburbia".
I do see your statement regarding employment, but most people on earth can't afford a car so living closer to necessities saves them a multi hour walk in an increasingly warmer climate.
This doesn't make sense to me economically in the US, so I wonder how it's different elsewhere?
A decent used car is much cheaper than urban real estate in many US cities. Poor retirees often live in mobile home parks. And people who need to save money shop at Walmart, not a pricy convenience store.
Seems like a poor person living in a big city who isn't lucky enough to have a rent-controlled apartment is going to end up homeless?
A decent used car is much cheaper than urban real estate in many US cities. Poor retirees often live in mobile home parks. And people who need to save money shop at Walmart, not a pricy convenience store.
Seems like a poor person living in a big city who isn't lucky enough to have a rent-controlled apartment is going to end up homeless?
Here is a read that may help, from 2001 but likely still very relevant.
https://www.prb.org/howindianslive/
https://www.prb.org/howindianslive/
Your analogy doesn't hold for me. Small house, 5 acres, pond, river, rural countryside.
If I walk down the street, the most dangerous things I can expect are deer, or if I'm very unlucky, a bobcat.
When I lived in the nearby urban cities, I could walk down the street and the most dangerous things I have faced in the past were people on crack, with weapons, wanting money. If I had been less fortunate, it would have been a gang that split open a neighbor's skull over a stolen CD.
Nothings perfect, but I'll take the country life any day.
If I walk down the street, the most dangerous things I can expect are deer, or if I'm very unlucky, a bobcat.
When I lived in the nearby urban cities, I could walk down the street and the most dangerous things I have faced in the past were people on crack, with weapons, wanting money. If I had been less fortunate, it would have been a gang that split open a neighbor's skull over a stolen CD.
Nothings perfect, but I'll take the country life any day.
There's a huge range, and "smaller towns" does not necessarily mean places where you are tens of kilometers away from essentials.
I order necessities from Amazon and they show up the next day. If I walk to the grocery store, I can only bring back what I can carry. If I drive to the store or have groceries delivered by Instacart, I can bring comfortably get lots of groceries.
Do you think remote work is a 1 to 1 substitution for working in a good office (You have your own office, limited pointless meetings, etc.) Seems that companies might just want to move out to cheaper areas instead of going primarily remote... which seems to be happening already. I suppose I am focused on tech here, as there are plenty of customer support workers for Apple, etc that WFH >99 percent of the time.
Having had a private office, cubicle, desk in an open office, shared office, and remote from home, coffee shop, car, etc, I feel like I can answer that. Remote work is not a 1:1 for a private office, but it's pretty close. Pointless meetings are a cultural thing and going remote at the same org will not reduce them significantly. I also don't think that there is any good replacement for face to face communication. 1:1 video calls are close, but not the same.
But, I think depending on your role within an organization really dictates whether a remote "office" will work. (and personality, work ethic, etc.)
Anyway, I think that companies, especially large orgs that will need to embrace remote more. Customer support is a great example where mostly remote can work well, could even become a "gig economy" thing (I hate that term). I don't think that many orgs will move to cheaper locations, at least not fully. I do think larger orgs will have remote offices in smaller markets, which many do. I'd like to see large orgs be open to investing in co-working spaces in small towns so that all the rural technology workers that are now commuting hours a day can save time and money.
Exciting time, decentralized workforces seem like a useful thing in many areas.
But, I think depending on your role within an organization really dictates whether a remote "office" will work. (and personality, work ethic, etc.)
Anyway, I think that companies, especially large orgs that will need to embrace remote more. Customer support is a great example where mostly remote can work well, could even become a "gig economy" thing (I hate that term). I don't think that many orgs will move to cheaper locations, at least not fully. I do think larger orgs will have remote offices in smaller markets, which many do. I'd like to see large orgs be open to investing in co-working spaces in small towns so that all the rural technology workers that are now commuting hours a day can save time and money.
Exciting time, decentralized workforces seem like a useful thing in many areas.
I agree with you. The tradeoff for me hasn't been "private office" vs "remote work", it's been "face time with colleagues/friends" vs "remote work". But, as you say, remote offices and the various other positions in that gradient are very exciting.
I feel like this is just going to apply to a small subset of people and is primarily focused on the first world. The vast majority of people in Africa are not going to be sitting in a cabin in the countryside working on a laptop.
Because of higher living costs in the cities (apartment, parking costs, etc) the group with lower income and on social welfare are moving to the rural areas where housing is cheaper.
> I see something dramatic happening in the next 15 years as wages stagnate, inflation rises and wealth is concentrated in the top .1% of the worlds population.
I'm really not trying to be on the attack here, but this kind of vague melodrama is pervasive on the internet and is really exhausting.
I'm really not trying to be on the attack here, but this kind of vague melodrama is pervasive on the internet and is really exhausting.
I mean, there is a pretty good chance that something dramatic will happen within a 15 year timespan given any time. Just depends on what you define as dramatic (9/11? WWI? WWII?). So, it is kind of an obtuse statement.
How Dare You!
Just kidding, I was a little vague so I will layout what I think could happen, all just my opinion. We are living in an age of both ever increasing wealth disparity and information. I believe that this wealth disparity and globalization have contributed to stagnating wages for the working class in the US and Europe which in turn has given rise to the current wave of populism (Trump, Brexit etc.). Populism often focus' on casting blame on those different from the majority, in this time frame refugees and immigrants serve as the scapegoat.
In third world countries labor is increasingly dedicated to working in factories on subsistence wages to build things for the wealthy that control the means of production. I take a Marxist approach on world politics in that I believe the primary driver of conflict and power is class as opposed to States / Nations. (Note: I have no interest in communism)
Historically these circumstances have led to major upheavals such as the French Revolution, the multiple populist waves that have swept Latin America and the rise of the Nazi Party. So essentially I am predicting a major wave of social unrest on a much larger scale than we have seen recently with the Arab Spring being a precursor.
Of course I could be totally wrong.
In third world countries labor is increasingly dedicated to working in factories on subsistence wages to build things for the wealthy that control the means of production. I take a Marxist approach on world politics in that I believe the primary driver of conflict and power is class as opposed to States / Nations. (Note: I have no interest in communism)
Historically these circumstances have led to major upheavals such as the French Revolution, the multiple populist waves that have swept Latin America and the rise of the Nazi Party. So essentially I am predicting a major wave of social unrest on a much larger scale than we have seen recently with the Arab Spring being a precursor.
Of course I could be totally wrong.
There's nothing you or I could do about it in any case - other than to put your best foot forward as a global citizen and be as good of a friend and family member as you can, so why stress out about it?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's just kind of dull...catastrophic stuff is happening as we speak...
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it's just kind of dull...catastrophic stuff is happening as we speak...
For all of earth, I assume the biggest trend in city migration is actually global warming. Desert expansion, failing crops, ... with all the fallout of consequentially destabilized villages/societies, civil wars, and so on, leading to mass immigration, ..., it's rather easy to see how global warming might be a big factor. It's just less obvious, because the regions hit hardest by global warming, are probably rather far away from western societies.
> As technology improves, fewer people are required to work on farms. [...] I see something dramatic happening in the next 15 years
I'm perplexed reading this. The number of people required to work on farms is already very low. Is there something particularly revolutionary happening with farming technology right now that would lower it dramatically again?
I'm perplexed reading this. The number of people required to work on farms is already very low. Is there something particularly revolutionary happening with farming technology right now that would lower it dramatically again?
I am sure harvests are still improving, due to automation, prediction and genetic engineering. Just not very visibly to outsiders. While the farms you know might superficially stagnate, same people running it, and so on, the total number of farms might decrease, and/or the population feeding on those harvests is increasing.
Not sure, but I would guess they're just extrapolating these trends onto places that still have high agricultural employment.
Also, in the developing world, farming is a much, much more unpleasant job than working in the city.
Title is overblown and misleading
TLDR: using satellite imaging instead of relying on self reporting, researchers found that the world is already 80%+ urbanized
TLDR: using satellite imaging instead of relying on self reporting, researchers found that the world is already 80%+ urbanized
Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ based really on interpretation, specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure. Certain cities that the European Commission include might not have certain core structures like a police station as the article itself pointed out with Egyptian villages that have grown into cities which in turn means that European Commission standards are not comparable to places outside Europe because the living standards etc aren't comparable.
As the article mentions, a place inhabited by 100,000 people should not be classified as a village only because the local authorities don't have enough money to built a new courthouse and police station.
If anything, this only proves the authors of the study right, as in development aid should be re-prioritized to fulfill urban-like needs (i.e. helping build a courthouse and paying the adjacent salaries) instead of continuing pumping money into things like agriculture, pretending that those 100,000 people are in the majority agricultural workers.
If anything, this only proves the authors of the study right, as in development aid should be re-prioritized to fulfill urban-like needs (i.e. helping build a courthouse and paying the adjacent salaries) instead of continuing pumping money into things like agriculture, pretending that those 100,000 people are in the majority agricultural workers.
>Title is a bit over-exaggerative. World is only 80%+ urbanized based on European Commission definitions of city and urbanization standards. Situations differ based really on interpretation, specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure.
Well, local "specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure" shouldn't matter.
We should pick one definition and stick to it, not just consider an 1M people place a "village" just because some country calls its so.
What interests us is how many cities etc there are population wise -- not name-wise. Whether they're called "cities" locally is irrelevant if they still function as such for our criteria.
Well, local "specific country policies for cities and population density and infrastructure" shouldn't matter.
We should pick one definition and stick to it, not just consider an 1M people place a "village" just because some country calls its so.
What interests us is how many cities etc there are population wise -- not name-wise. Whether they're called "cities" locally is irrelevant if they still function as such for our criteria.
In this way it almost seems appropriate to rely on country statistics - sure there may be political motivations to label certain places a certain way, but they are also more likely to capture local variations as to what is considered urban and not. I live in a place that is semi-rural by Indian standards but which definitely qualify as urban by EU standards.
That really depends on what goal you're trying to achieve. If your goals are efficient distribution of aid, or tracking city sustainability across countries, it probably doesn't matter to you what the local variations in the definition of "urban" are.
Because of environmental issues (better to live close to work, less carbon pollution) and globalisation agenda, the rural areas of the world are lost forever. The rural areas will become as in the movie Mad Max, totally without and control from government.
Politicians will never address the rural areas in a positive way, because they know they will loose city votes. That’s why you always here generic promises, like “more police” and such, then they also get the city votes.
Politicians will never address the rural areas in a positive way, because they know they will loose city votes. That’s why you always here generic promises, like “more police” and such, then they also get the city votes.
The Veluwe area in The Netherlands already has a civilian patrol that even has multiple helicopters. This is a direct result of the police closing down stations in rural areas.
https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/veluwse-knokploeg-met-helikopte...
https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/veluwse-knokploeg-met-helikopte...
>Because of environmental issues (better to live close to work, less carbon pollution) and globalisation agenda, the rural areas of the world are lost forever. The rural areas will become as in the movie Mad Max, totally without and control from government.
Not necessarily -- at the first sign of disruption, e.g. a large economy crash, a peak oil related problems, climate change related catastrophes, it's the cities that will become like in Zombie movies.
Rural areas can be much more self-sustainable when it comes to the essentials.
(Someone feels invested enough in city life to downvote a pretty standard argument. And yet this is how people survived major wars and famines in the city in my country -- by having an outlet to grow vegetables etc. in the countryside).
Not necessarily -- at the first sign of disruption, e.g. a large economy crash, a peak oil related problems, climate change related catastrophes, it's the cities that will become like in Zombie movies.
Rural areas can be much more self-sustainable when it comes to the essentials.
(Someone feels invested enough in city life to downvote a pretty standard argument. And yet this is how people survived major wars and famines in the city in my country -- by having an outlet to grow vegetables etc. in the countryside).
Current estimates puts urbanisation at 55% of all humans, and it's expected to grow to 70% by 2050, more than thirty years from now. And these researchers now claim the current level of urbanisation is already over 84%.
In which field would an error of more than half the current estimate not be a huge deal? Or already being 14% over the projected number of a generation away?
As the article mentions, these numbers matted a whole lot to policy makers and international decision making. It may feel abstract and uninteresting to the average nerd but this stuff has serious consequences.