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

Earth....

[zapwow]

Soon to be renamed: Trantor!

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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:

The basic concept remains intact, namely that rural includes open country and small settlements of less than 2,500 persons. However, there are many small towns and cities that have adjoining towns or suburbs, both incorporated and unincorporated aggregations. The Bureau has defined such urban clusters regardless of political boundaries. For example, a small town of 2,000 people with an adjacent densely settled suburb of 800 people would be designated as an urban cluster with a population of 2,800. Under 1990 procedures there would be no combination and the population would remain rural.

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. Does 2,500 people in a town mean anything special? How would the numbers change for the US is we went to 2,600? I came from a town of 30,000 and I thought that was Hicksville. The standards for this study are probably different that that of the USDA, but it doesn't matter. It will be arbitrary as well. You can pick your timeline for when the world became more urban than rural as you pick your definitions for rural and urban. And if you can get past that hurdle, then you can try to figure out your uncertainties in your numbers.

Re:Stats all the way to the single digits

[ag0ny]

So, the entire census is conducted at exactly the same second? If you take a full day, you're going to have people you already counted who died in that period, people you already counted who have since given birth in that period, etc.

Just take a snapshot before the census! Duh!

Re:Stats all the way to the single digits

[kc8apf]

Actually, Hicksville has only 5,003 people in it as of 2000 (http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locInd ex=274281).

I grew up in a neighboring city (Defiance).

Re:Stats all the way to the single digits

[Yvanhoe]

More plausible is that this is a projection : they know a rough estimate of the population at Jan 1st 2007 and they know the birth rate, death rate, the rate of urbanization, the differences in fertility and life expectancy in cities and countryside and they get a non-round number, not precise but that bears some information nonetheless.

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.

Obligatory Civ reference

[MagicDude]

I guess we better get to building some coliseums, or the citizens will stop being productive.

Early in the late 1910s?

[RedWizzard]

early in the late 1910s. WTF does that mean? Can we get an editor here, please?

Re:Early in the late 1910s?

[RedWizzard]

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". What a difference a comma would have made:

In the US, the tipping point from a majority rural to a majority urban population came early, in the late 1910s." Punctuation: it's not just for making faces.

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?

Re:Dangerous?

[iminplaya]

All those possessions will probably be stolen before they have any chance to trade with the farmers. And yes they are quite neighborly. Say all the nasty things you want. And as primitive as our infrastructure may appear to you, it actually is a bit more robust. I only need to point out the differences between Hurricanes Wilma and Katrina to make my point. Even most of the palapas withstood better than those fancy townhouses did when Wilma went whizzing through Florida, and it killed more people in Florida. Pretty obvious when you take into account that nobody died from that storm in Mexico. Now Chiapas was a completely different story. Their infrastructure is totally a "fair weather friend". But people came to their aid instead of just rounding them up. As nasty as it was, I consider it better than what happened to New Orleans. Truly inexcusable that was. But watching those rivers was truly impressive. You could feel the power just standing close by, just the noise was something you can't imagine, going on for weeks! And I bet it would have done just as much damage to an American town. It's really just an example of what can happen when people get complacent over a period of time, no matter where they are. Self sufficiency has its benefits, even if luxury isn't always one of them. Little by little I'm getting there, and I should be able to even keep my connection up in all but the worst of times. Having a couple of hectares sure would be nice though. Someday...

Let's hear it for urbanism!

[JanneM]

The 50/50 tipping point doesn't have much other than symbolic value, of course, but it is another signpost on the road forward for humanity. Cities can be - and are - miserable hellholes, of course, but remember that even a bad slum is often a substantial step up compared to a life of rural landlessness.

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: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.

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

[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.

vast cities

[bit trollent]

I often marvel at the civilization we live in.

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

[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: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.

Re:Who is gonna milk the cows

[Smight]

Don't worry. Soon we'll be so efficient all the physical labor can be done by a single Australian man.

Re:Who is gonna milk the cows

[Fengpost]

Yes, that is why they invented the "Voluntary Milking System." Yes, it runs on Linux!

http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS4275702675.html

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:Condescending and Elitist

[Alsee]

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

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.

-

Redefining "major"

[Torodung]

"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.

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.

-- Toro

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.

Our new business plan:

[default luser]

1. Form First Foundation.
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!!

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...

Yes, we can trust this analysis.

[ScentCone]

I was a little doubtful about the people who released this information. I mean, what do THEY know? But, they used the phrase "tipping point," so I guess they know what they're talking about.

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]

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.

Sig figs don't work that way

[Nf1nk]

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.

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