World Population Becomes More Urban Than Rural

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."

Comments

Stats all the way to the single digits

[Richard McBeef]

How do they calculate that? I mean, they cannot have that high of a confidence level in those numbers.

Re:Stats all the way to the single digits

[sarahbau]

Whether they say 53,103,102 or 53,000,000, it's still to the person. Just because one number is a little more "neat" than the other, there's no way to know which one is more accurate. The actual number could be higher than the first number, meaning rounding down would just make it even less accurate. It makes more sense to me to give a result that's in the middle of the error range than rounding.

Re:Stats all the way to the single digits

[dajak]

The city of Veere in the Netherlands for instance has about 1500 inhabitants. It was already a walled city when Columbus discovered America, it has a busy harbour, and it is the administrative center for twelve other towns and villages, some of which have more inhabitants.

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.

Re:Early in the late 1910s?

[Sparr0]

I am going to assume that it means "in the late 1910s, which is much earlier than the 2007 date for the world at large".

Re:Early in the late 1910s?

[zapwow]

early in the late 1910s. WTF does that mean? Can we get an editor here, please? It means sometime likely between 1915-1919 inclusive. It makes sense if you think "the late 1980s" or "the late 1820s"... "the late 1910s".

Dangerous?

[iminplaya]

Could this put more people in a dangerous position of dependency on a fragile infrastructure run by people without your best interests in mind? I moved away from the city because that very thing makes me feel very uncomfortable. There are very many small family farms only a few hours away by bus(couple of days by donkey cart if need be)...just in case. Never know when Oscar Mayer might quit making my dinner for me. Good thing I like beans and tortillas. And some of the home made liquor is pretty tasty too.

Re:Dangerous?

[glwtta]

Yeah, great plan - visualize the worst-case scenario, then start living it preemptively. "They can't take away the benefits of society if I give them up myself!"

How about I go do the donkey cart and beans thing when the "fragile infrastructure" actually crumbles on me?

Another way to look at it.

[crazyjeremy]

For the first time in history urban areas are over 70% minorities. Thus America is one of the few lands where you can be outnumbered but THEY are considered the minority. I love math... It's so... flexible.

Re:Another way to look at it.

[jayratch]

For the first time in history urban areas are over 70% minorities.

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.

or is it urban sprawl

[grapeape]

I wonder how much of it is really the rural people heading for the city versus the city inching towards the rural areas. The town I live in had around 12,000 people when I moved here around 15 years ago. Its around an hour from the city. Around 5-6 years ago the cost of living in the cities suburbs started getting out of hand, builders starting buying up farms and wooded areas and building these huge "communities" where all the houses are the same shape and color...they advertised it as a quaint getway from the big city and shortly after started building WalMarts, Mega grocery stores, starbucks, etc and now its just like the area they all left.

Re:or is it urban sprawl

[himurabattousai]

It's urban sprawl, at least around Chicago. There's a little town called Pingree Grove on U.S 20. The town is about 50 miles from the Chicago City Limits. Five years ago, the population of this town was 150 people; now, it's over 2000. All the other towns by the Illinois 47 corridor (Marengo, Hampshire, etc.) are seeing the same thing. This invasion of cookie-cutter mansions--starting price is mid-three hundred thousands--makes me sick.

I liked being able to find something resembling open country so relatively close to home. It was nice to get away from all the overhead lamps and stoplights and Wal-Marts and all those other suburban staples that lurk around every corner. Seeing the sun rise over a Wal-Mart parking lot isn't majestic. It doesn't inspire awe or wonder. All it does is remind me that I'm living in the wrong place. I like open spaces and quiet nights, and I know that those things are being pushed out for more 24-hour this-and thats.

I also know that I'm not the only one who wants these quieter places. The sad irony is that trying to escape the busy city nightlife only drags it out further. I imagine that quite soon, the Chicago Metropolitan Area will extend halfway across the state, not because Rockford and everyone else on I-39 wants to be absorbed by that growing urban area, but rather because of people who only want to sleep at night without halogen lamps blinding them at midnight. Unless one picks someplace that really is the middle of nowhere, escape is impossible. Eventually, even that might not be enough.

Re:or is it urban sprawl

[bogjobber]

I find it supremely hypocritical that you are criticizing other people for moving to your town when you did the same thing, just a few years earlier. I see this same type of thinking from a lot of people near where I live (rural Colorado). People move into a small town and want that town to retain the exact same character that it had at the time you moved there. I'm sure there were people in the town 15 years ago that didn't want *you* to move there. Either way, it's a waste of breath. Just be happy that you live in a place where growth is happening and people actually want to live. If you *really* hate the way development is going try and get into local government and make some changes. It's hard, but many towns have retained their rural character instead of just turning into a suburb that's 50 miles away from the city.

Re:or is it urban sprawl

[pimpimpim]

This is why in some/most european countries there is such a thing as area planning. Even if you buy larges pieces of ground by yourself, what you do with it still has to comply with the destination for this area planned by the (local) government. Now in practice this is also a fight against big money, and often lost to the latter. One tactic is to start building before the decision of the govenrment is made, and by the time they have voted against it it is already built, and breaking it down doesn't make sense. But still it can be used to make sure that a new housing area actually has a real city center, contains a pleasant ratio of houses/(small) shops/offices. I think that is the best way, not everyone wants to live in the city, so areas with one family houses are needed, but instead of creating a suburb it is much nicer to create a small urban area that has all services at hand.

Re:Early in the late 1910s?

[Eddi3]

Um... Sometime in between the later part of the 1910s (1915-1919) and the earlier part of that (1916-1917)

I don't see what was so hard to understand about that...

Eddie

Re:Hyperbolic Slashdot text

[heretic108]

Oh my... this statement is killing me:
        For the first time in human history, the earth's population is more urban than rural.
I really do not see that there'll be a second time when the earth's population will be come more urban than rural

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:Who is gonna milk the cows

[catbutt]

Learn a bit of economics. Supply and demand and stuff. Not enough people to milk the cows, the price of milk goes up, more people want to stay in the country and milk cows. It all works out.

Condescending and Elitist

[Nymz]

FTA

"But given global rural impoverishment, the rural-urban question for the future is not just what rural people and places can do for the world's new urban majority. Rather, what can the urban majority do for poor rural people and the resources upon which cities depend for existence?."

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 and US Senate, where rural states are represented and protected from exploitation, from the larger populations of urban states.

Re:Condescending and Elitist

[AuMatar]

Funny, when I think successful systems, not only is the electoral college not on the list, its on the opposing list. The idea that a rural citizen's vote is worth more than mine, because we have an system of government that dates back to when we were really 13 different nations instead of 1, is a travesty and ought to be gotten rid of. The fact that the president of the country can lose the population gives us things like... well George Bush.

Re:vast cities

[servognome]

I'm glad the world's population is more urban than rural. cities rock.

On the other hand, over urbanization means u wake up from a horrible sleep because the couple in the house nextdoor(6 inches away) was fighting all night. Then you have the choice of taking an overcrowded train or crawl along the highway in your car at 6mph to get to your cubicle at work. After a hard day you can walk along dirty streets on your way to a bar, look up at all the grey buildings with no possibility of seeing 90% of the sky, let alone the sunset on the horizon. When you get to the bar you can enjoy ordering a pint of beer that costs 2x what it would in a less urban environment. After a few drinks, head home, grab the mail and realize when you see the bill for your mortgage you could buy a nice 4 bedroom house with a big backyard in the country for less than what you pay for your tiny 2 bedroom city shack.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why do rural places have better air quality and water quality? I get sick off of most urban city water but can drink from most rural town water and well water easily.

Sure cars make sense but how many people in cities actually use public transportation. A nearby city is trying to build a rail system but is having lots of protest on the grounds that few people will use it. And in many rural areas people work at home (farms/teleworkers/mom-and-pop-stores-with-apartme nts-on-top) as well as travel to work. Add into the fact that rural communities probably use less artifical light (nighttime is dark where I live even in the main shopping areas).

Rounding

[Kamokazi]

There were probably decimal places on those numbers too. My guess is they just predict a monthly or yearly growth number and then divide that out day by day and end up with a number that probably has many decimal places that they round off to the nearest whole number. I'm sure they have a margin of error if you look into it.

Does it really matter if it's 3,303,992,253 or 3,304,000,000? It's actually kind of silly to round that high, because the first number is probably going to be closer.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Rotten168]

Yeah but not everyone wants to live "efficiently". Were we put on this earth to live "efficiently"? Someone might think that we were put on this Earth to maybe enjoy life and stuff, and not everyone enjoys life in a city.

Re:Hyperbolic Slashdot text

[Daniel Dvorkin]

freedom isn't some mass produced, commoditized beast of a city, it's the sleeping on the porch without fear of some gang banger popping a cap in you.

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.

Okay everyone!

[Chas]

Quick! Now that Lower East Bumblefuckistan is so empty, let's move out there and take over!

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...

Re:The date is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need more terms of the Taylor expansion rural_pop(t) = 3,303,992,253 - 125,849*t + c2*t^2 + c3*t^3 + ... to be able to extrapolate 71 years ahead.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Talgrath]

Depends on what you think of when you think of a city. Almost any city on the east coast will have public transportation, it isn't even second guessed; same with California. Midwest "cities" tend to be more car-oriented. As for why rural places have "better" air quality, it's simple take 1,000,000 people who burn, let's say 10 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about and compare it to say...1,000 who live in the same size area but burn 50 lbs on average of carbon a day to move about. Which burns up more carbon total? The 1,000,000 of course. These are made up numbers, but I think you get the point.

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.

Human habitats...

[gd23ka]

and after they're all concentrated in the cities..

Remember what is says on the Georgia Guidestones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

        * 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?

[Targon]

This is something that has annoyed me for a long time now. Those who own homes get tax deductions from the interest on their home loans. As a result, not only do home owners see the value of their home increase over time, but they get tax deductions on the interest from their home loans, so the cost of living for homeowners will end up being lower in the long term.

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.

Define "urban".

[jonadab]

Much of that "urban" population lives in smaller cities and towns, not in the large megalopoles most people think of when you say "urban". For every city of a million people, there are ten cities of a hundred thousand people. For every city of a hundred thousand people, there are fifty cities of ten thousand. And for every city of ten thousand, there are twenty or thirty smaller towns and villages. Taken individually, their population is small, but there are a lot of them.

These kinds of surveys count them all as "urban", because the residents don't live on farms, but they are, culturally speaking, nothing like the big cities.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Rotten168]

Right, there's nothing to do in the country. Thanks for the info. Personally, I like day hiking... I guess it's a shame I won't be able to find a shoe store in the country.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[clydemaxwell]

Haha, living in the city, paying even more to pretend you're not.

I hope you can see the absurdity (:

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that we dont want to pay for it. Ill come out and say it I love having my own piece of Realestate on the highway that goes WHERE I want. WHEN I want it to.

and you dont have to put up with other People - THIS is paramount.

Re:Let's hear it for urbanism!

[Grishnakh]

High-density cities sound good in theory, but in reality they just don't work. The problem is the other people: they're loud, they're rude, they're careless, and they don't care about anyone but themselves. Anyone who lives in an apartment should know that apartment life sucks unless you're deaf, because of the neighbors who have blaring stereos at all hours, and barking dogs. Move out to a subdivision with a yard, and loud stereos aren't a problem any more, but you still have all the barking dogs at all hours. Add to this all the crime; these days, home invasion is becoming very commonplace.

The reason people like to live away from other people is because so many people cause problems and make living around them miserable.