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."
Soon to be renamed: Trantor!
I guess we better get to building some coliseums, or the citizens will stop being productive.
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.
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.
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?
sic transit gloria mundi
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!
My site
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.