Sometime this year, the majority of the earth's population will be urban dwellers. What kind of impact do you think this will have on the future?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The world goes to town
Sometime this year, the majority of the earth's population will be urban dwellers. What kind of impact do you think this will have on the future?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
There will be both positive and negatvie impacts when the majority of Earth's population are urban dwellers. However, the bad effects will outnumber the good. Even though urbanization will bring about new and better technologies, there will only be a few of us who will be able to use them. The move from a rural to an urban population will make the gap between the rich and the poor much greater than it currently is. Populations will double and tripple due to the closer living quarters. This will be the cause of new diseases that will have similar effects of the plague. The Earth can only hold about 50 billion people on it and with several cities with populations well above 1 million, we will hit that mark in a very short time. Our future is not going to be bright if we continue to move into an urban environment.
There could never be a time where the majority of the people in the world move from the rural life to live in urban cities. It would cause too many negative effects. Farming is still needed, so if this was to happen how would people go about getting vegetables or other goods that are made. There are a lot more people living in urban cities but I don�t think that because of this more people will escape from poverty. The rich will get richer and the poor will remain poor.
the increasing urban population from rural areas to cities has been going on since villages and cities have been created. with the estimated increase to urban areas will have many negative affects such as disease crowding and a greater drift between the rich and the poor social classes
as the urban population grows so much faster than the rural one, more places will transfer from rural to urban or suburban. the problems will be overcrowding, spread of disease, and other not so wonderful things. however, according to the article, the only way to stop the increase in city dwellers is to either stop people from moving to cities, or sterilize people. neither one seems likely, so this is another problem that either has no solution, or needs some very creative problem solving
"It's getting better all the time."
Technology, which once rocketed urban growth is now allowing for would-be city dwellers to live in more rural environments thanks to the internets (not a road in Alaska). But that doesn't mean cities aren't still expanding. After all, as the writer made mention of, it was only when man started to come together and domesticate animals and farm that he was able to grow surplus food and have people assigned to specific tasks. The history of the growth of cities was a slow one until recently, and with the rate at which technology and everything else is improving it is no small wonder that people are migrating to the cities en masse even more so than during the Industrial Revolution. It's a fact that fewer people are needed to farm and there are simply more job opportunities in cities. Yes there are certain disincentives for moving to cities, crime and such, but ultimately the pros outweigh the cons when it comes to capital gain through new job opportunities and increasing human capital through eduction in a hub of intellectual thought. We have even seen a fresh wave of immigration, which has certainly increased the population in urban areas. Plus in today's economy its virtually impossible to avoid contact with any city completely.
wow. 50 percent.
that a lot when you think of how many people live on the planet--six billion. I followed the chain of article, and none of them mentioned what exactly constitutes an "urban area", but i giess it doesn't really matter...what does matter is the quality of life in these areas. yes, living near an economic center does improve one's chances of financial success, but is it worth it? I mean, is sleeping in a soggy hut that wreaks of fecees really worth it? Well, 50 percent of us seem to think so. This phenominon perfectly illustrates how unequal our recources are dispersed. If things were more equal, maybe urbaization wouldn't be as drastic.
I think that it will lead to increased deforrestizaton to make room for the emerging cities. That will lead to an increase in the % of the population that are in poverty as well as increased pollution. The increased pollution will lead to a increase in the number of programs in place to decrease pollution and create alternatives to gas powered vehicles.
I think that it will lead to increased deforrestizaton to make room for the emerging cities. That will lead to an increase in the % of the population that are in poverty as well as increased pollution. The increased pollution will lead to a increase in the number of programs in place to decrease pollution and create alternatives to gas powered vehicles.
Well. It isn't going to be super awesome, that's for sure. For all the talk about people colonizing the moon, fact remains that urban dwelling has it's problems. Long-term. Short-term, it's a great move. Why not move into the city? I myself am thinking about doing just that out of college, getting an apartment with a (hopefully) low rent, or buying one to avoid the problems of being single and owning a house. For a few years, or longer, that's a great solution for me. It's cheaper, and more economical for me to spend my resources doing something that will greatly increase my utility. (quote bonus!)
But there are long-term problems. If farmers decide that it is cheaper for them to move into apartments in the city, obviously no one is willing to take on a harder life and take over. This is a broad overview, neglecting complexities, of course, but it is the general effect. It's nice that people are trying to grow cabbage in water or what-have-you, but the bottom line is that society has to catch up with urbanization before it can even hope to be successfull.
Having the majority of the earth's population become urban dwellers would have both positive and negative impacts. Living in urban areas leads to many more job opportunities for the people and more technological advances. However, the gap between the rich and the poor would greatly increase. Also, many people living together in a close vicinity would lead to a quick spread of diseases among the people and overcrowding. The earth has a set carrying capacity and at this rate we are bound to over exceed it in the very near future. New regulations on population growth need to begin being considered.
when most of the population becomes urban dwellers, the social gap between the rich and the poor will grow immensely. any new technological advancements will only be able to be used by the few that can afford them. also, overcrowding will cause many harmful effects to our world. problems such as disease and overpopulation will change our planet for the worse.
when the majority of the population becomes urban dwellers, the social gap between the rich and the poor will grown immensely. any new technoligical advancements that arise will only be accessed by the few wealthy citizens that can afford them. with a population increase in urban areas, negative effects will be had on our world. diseas and over crowding will be extremely harmful to our planet
50% of the worlds population in the cities is a big number of people. But if you look at the facts it makes sense. There has been an increase in the number of student who go to college. Some colleges are in the center of cities or at least close by. Take a look at Boston, you have Boston University, Boston College, Tufts, and Northeastern to name a few. When the college students do Co-ops they probably working in the city that their college is, so when they graduate they already have the place they know where they want to work. So you have increase in the cities population for education and for work.
i don't think to most that the majority of people living in urban areas was actually surprising. since the beginning of mankind we have been working to better build up society. these cities that were built have acted as a starting point to what our economy has built up to be today. cities have served as a main point of trading and markets that keeps our economy working.
in our materialistic society surely urban areas will continue to spread and put the ratio of urban to rural areas at a greater difference. as most of us dont enjoy the company of city people in eastern long island, soon enough i believe we wont be seen as the locals anymore. our small communities will eventually face a build-up and be considered an urban are (if it isn't already) where in the future we may be turned away from the dislike of our own hometown.
i think that the environment will be the most affected by this new statistic. more people moving into urban areas will increase pollution, making the environment worse off than it already is. also, as the population of the world continues to grow, so will the demand for space, causing cities to grow and spread into rural areas, causing numerous damage to the environment.
I believe that if the majority of our population became urban dwelers, many negative effects would take place. There would be some positive effects such as more advanced technology, but the negeative effects would out weight the postive effects. Some of the negative effects would be increased defforrestization, which would really hurt our environment. I also believe that the gap between the rich and the poor would increase. In order to have a growing economy I believe that we need our population living in both urban and rural areas.
This will certainly have an effect on my future. My big plan is to go to college, move to new york, get a hip-but-shitty apartment downtown, work my way up to the top, move into a sicker apt, and live a posh life forever. But with so many people migrating to cities there's going to be a lot of competition for my sweet lifestyle.
Of course I am only talking about what the article refers to as a "rich city." All the "poor cities" in the world are skrewed, there the rich/poor gap is much worse and people live in disgusting conditions. I think rich cities will flourish with everyone competing (competition is good.) for urban jobs = city utility goes way up. Poor cities will gradually deteriorate even more with the proliferation of slums, disease, ect. = hells on earth
But who knows/cares, we'll all be dead from a nuclear disaster anyway by the time any of this urbanization gets way too out of hand
I have to disagree with the people who say that the increase in cities will lead to an increase in disease. Most cities are not dense enough for that to be an issue, and the increased ease of getting medicine should outweigh the cost.
The environmental effect is hard to predict. Cities such as New York and Oakland provide amazing public transportation, and most people rely on that instead of cars to get around. Some cities are quite the opposite, however, they are sprawled and have crummy transportation so everyone drives everywhere.
To answer joanna's question...I believe it is 2500 people per square mile? But schack attack would know from teaching environmental (way to pay attention last year jojo!)
For some reason, it doesn't seem that big of a deal that 50% of the world's population will be urban...after all if were almost already there, then what's a few more people??
What the article doesn't answer is whether people are continuing to move to cities, or whether, because of exponential population growth, city populations are just growing naturally. I would be interested to know which is the case.
But certainly the standard of living in poor cities is already low. A few million more people living there will not drastically decrease it. In a rich city, the disparity between living standards may widen, but the rich will certainly continue to live in luxury. However, it is not necessarily the growth of cities that is the problem. It may just be the seemingly uncontrolled growth of population that promises future catastrophes. Also, if cities become bad enough, maybe people will move out to rural areas. But rural ares are sure to become scarce soon enough. It is not the population of the city that matters exactly; it is whether or not the city expands and eats more land as the population correspondingly increases. With new urban areas such as "chipitts" it is a scary thing to imagine our entire country as one big city. But as the population continues to leap higher, this is something we may see in the near future.
As the earth's population moves from rural areas to cities, they bring many negative side effects to the cities. In the past when people first started moving to cities, the areas they settled into became more like slums, where diseases were bred and people lived in dangerous and confined spaces. Although city dwellers are important, having rural populations is a necessity also. We need farmers to produce food and in turn need land for cattle to graze on that would not normally be found in a city. The world needs a balance between rural and city dwellings for the benefit of everyone, and as time goes on the gap between city and rural populations is increasing heavily towards the city.
Urbanization has been increasing ever since cities itself were created. To think about stopping people from moving to cities is illogical. With technology developing even more, less people will be needed for farming, which means they will look for other job opportunities in the cities. But this will also bring other problems, like overcrowding, pollution, deseases, unsanitary conditions, and the gap between the poor and the rick will be even more visible. Crime will also be likely to increase. And as the article mentions, much of the wealthy population has left the cities to accommodate themselves in rural areas and suburbs, which only means the poor people will end up in the cities, and the rich in the rural areas.
The inhabitance of urban areas rather than rural ones has been happening for a long time, but with the increase in population and the increases of life expectancies, this is now becoming somewhat of a problem. With many cities being populated with over 1 million people, and some like Tokyo with 35 million, overcrowding seems like an understatement. This will lead to many problems, such as diseases, pollution and greater gaps between the economic classes.
despite the strain this may put on the economic structure of cities it also has the possibility to increase the economic standing of many cities due to the influx of people. Though more people technically does imply that there will be more jobs the result most likely will not be definite leading to a increased amount of homeless unless plan are made to educate and provide homes for the new population
There is nothing wrong with people moving to the city. As we know from history, new farming techniques and technology made it possible for less people to produce food. As population increases in urban areas, new ideas will be added to hold more people.
I also know that cities can hurt the poor from malnourishment to disease, but like the Romans and their aqueduct, we will find ways to fix the problem. Whenever there is a problem people tend to find solutions especially when it affects most of the population. In this case, the city will hold a majority of the people. If a wide spread problem harms cities, new ideas and technology will be introduced to fight it, ultimately evolving society.
the move from rural to urban is a big leap. the gap between the rich and the poor will become even greater.with this gap growing larger there will be an increase in diseases such as AIDS,and posibly some new diseases will accure.
Throughout history many people have been moving from farms to cities in large numbers. with new technology there is a less need for farming which makes a lot more job opportunities in cities. on the other hand, there will be more overcrowding in cities and pollution will increase tremendously. There will also be a lot more crime in cities. overall, there are beneficial and harmful effects of urbanization.
Troughout history people have been moving from rural areas to urban ones for various of reason. that has not changed until today. people move to look for jobs and more opportunities. though cities now have become immense. in cities there are benefits as well as harmful things such as disease and overcrowding. the wages of a job as much less then in a rural area just because there are more people willing to do the job for a less wage. China has the highest population in the world. therefore you can expect more people living in cities doing jobs for a minimun wage which the outcome is cheaper goods, where companies such as wal*mart buys in order to sell us for a cheaper price then if the goods came from the u.s
The movement of people from rural areas to cities is definitley going to have a negative impact on cities. Overpopulation is going to help dieases spread faster because people are always in the city and traveling out. pollution will be a problem too. The city is already dirty and gross. It is going to be worse in the next years ahead.
Post a Comment