This is one of my blogs that I am the least qualified to write, but at my age and the paths that I have taken around the world, I think I may have something to contribute. Why would anyone even ask such a question? Well, I do ask questions and I try to get them answered. Are cities good for us humans? There, I asked it again. So, what is the answer.
No one likes a pessimist so as a result, we tend to respond in the positive to most questions and this one is no different. Most people would start out claiming that cities are good and then go on to site the different things that are good about cities. Their objective would be to site so many good things about cities that there would be no need to consider the bad points. This process even if done in a balanced way, does not get at the real answer. The real question that the question begs is whether cities are better for humans than non-cities or rural situations. This may be a repeat for some, but I used to work with this guy who always responded to a questions, "compared to what?" In this case, I am going to borrow from him. Are cities good for us humans, compared to what?
There is a principle that applies to time series like the history of the human race. If some historic pattern was able to get us to this point, it must have had some positive aspects because many humans did not get to this point. They died off. Since they died off, they are not here now to participate in the debate. We constitute a biased sample because we did make it. Now back to the question. Since 99% of the history of the human race has been people "not" living in cities and since the development of cities is a "new" thing, it is worth asking if cities are good for us humans. I am not sure and am willing to consider that they are "not".
Here is another one of the points that I have made in the past. Transitions are what we should be looking at, not steady states. Now why is this important? If you look at the great success of the human race in the past 250 or so years, I contend that it was the transition from rural to cities that accounted to the progress. Not the fact that many of us ended up in cities. What city do you think was the largest in the world 800 years ago? It was not in Europe or Asia. It was in Illinois across the Mississippi River from St Louis. It was call Cahokia. It was the largest city in the world in its hay day. The reason that I point this out is that it is not there any more. It was abandoned before Columbus even discovered the New World. If big cities are good, then why is it gone now. Even the Greek and Roman cities failed. Do you think that cities just might not be a good idea in the long run? They seem fine in "transition", but what about in "final end state". The end game or the limit?
How about raising children in cities vs rural? Here in the USA, we have a good example of what I am talking about. We started off rural and only recently urbanized. In my life time at least 50% of the population was rural and now it is down to only about 10%. Has this change also changed us as a people? Has it been good for out kids? Do you think it makes our future more secure? Do you think that urbanization will provide us with a better future? Are cities "good" for us humans?
The main thing that has created the situation where our cities have failed in the past is that the whole concept of urbanization is "brittle". That means if you pull out just a few of the right brick, the whole thing will tumble down. That is exactly what has happened in the past. It could have been war, food, sickness or anything. If it happened to a city, the city failed, but if it happened to a rural situation, the system did "not" fail and thus we are here to day to debate this point.
Try this, do you think that our kids did better in the one and two room school houses of the past than they do today in the large consolidated urban schools? If you are honest, you know the answer. Who were the kids who came from the rural area to colleges in the urban areas. What do you think will and has happened as our colleges are now populated with mostly city kids? Did you know that North Dakota kids have the highest SAT scores and have the largest percentage of their population going into the the hard majors like technology? that's a fact. What do you think will happen when there are no more rural North Dakotas?
How about crime, drugs and out of wed lock births. Where is it the worst? Where do you think most of the kids come from who fight our wars? It is not New York City. As I said, I don't know much about this subject, but I have kept my eyes open all these years and I have lived the transition. My own kids and grand kids look like strangers to me now. Why is that? What has happened? Is it as simple as urbanization?
