Slashdot Mirror
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."
How do they calculate that? I mean, they cannot have that high of a confidence level in those numbers.
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.
What?
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.
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.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
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.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
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.
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.