"Overpopulation is NOT the cause of social or economic problems."

[Dachs]

It's literally when Rome ceased to be the capital - instead, emperors resided at Mediolanum, or Ravenna, or Augusta Treverorum, etc. Nothing more than that.

 

[Narz]

Your comment about large and stable empires being a necessity for cities is of course silly.

Cities are generally not self-sufficient & require control of lands outside the city to maintain themselves.

Now, more than ever. I don't see anything silly about it.

 

[innonimatu]

Cities are generally not self-sufficient & require control of lands outside the city to maintain themselves.

Now, more than ever. I don't see anything silly about it.

But since when did a city's hinterland automatically became an empire? Many, many cities fed only on the produce of its near surroundings.
And even during the Middle Ages several european cities and whole kingdoms had to import cereals every year, for centuries, to feed their population, without having imperial control over the producing areas. Cereals were exported from the Baltic to the Atlantic coasts, for example.

 

[Cutlass]

Cities are generally not self-sufficient & require control of lands outside the city to maintain themselves.

Now, more than ever. I don't see anything silly about it.

Or they just trade for what they need.

 

[Narz]

But since when did a city's hinterland automatically became an empire? Many, many cities fed only on the produce of its near surroundings.
And even during the Middle Ages several european cities and whole kingdoms had to import cereals every year, for centuries, to feed their population, without having imperial control over the producing areas. Cereals were exported from the Baltic to the Atlantic coasts, for example.

I thought of that after I posted. But you can't claim the situation is like that today. Cities today are very vulnerable & unsustainable. In the past societies collapsed on thei own. Nowadays we're so intertwined that a collapse would be catastrophic for all.

Or they just trade for what they need.

Right, but again the situation isn't like that today. Cities don't produce much of real value anymore & can't produce anything on their own.

 

[Cutlass]

Right, but again the situation isn't like that today. Cities don't produce much of real value anymore & can't produce anything on their own.

Not at all true. Cities remain centers of manufacture, financial services, business services, medical services, education services, communications services, ect, ect, ect. You think the rural areas are self sufficient? Even the Amish are dependent on the cities. They don't manufacture their own tools.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Right, but again the situation isn't like that today. Cities don't produce much of real value anymore & can't produce anything on their own.

Man, don't tell the posters from Singapore this.

 

[Tee Kay]

Man, don't tell the posters from Singapore this.

Or Hong Kong.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Or Hong Kong.

The Maldives.

 

[Narz]

Maybe I wasn't very clear, cities do produce but they produce everything with raw materials brought in from outside. And yes, even the Amish have adapted to using factory made tools & whatnot.

Anyway, this thread has gotten off on a tangent regarding Rome & now Hong Kong & the sustainability of cities. But my original point, that Brendan O’Neill is a dumbass, still holds.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Anyway, this thread has gotten off on a tangent regarding Rome & now Hong Kong & the sustainability of cities. But my original point, that Brendan O’Neill is a dumbass, still holds.

Of course, the reasoning behind this point doesn't hold, but who needs that?

 

[Narz]

Of course, the reasoning behind this point doesn't hold, but who needs that?

I gave good reasoning but people fixated on the Rome thing.

The point is that the author didn't really have any reasoning, just a bunch of slander, typical journalist. It reminded me of an article by a global warming "skeptic" & had about as much credibility.

 

[Dachs]

I gave good reasoning but people fixated on the Rome thing.

Well, what else am I going to talk about?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, what else am I going to talk about?

:3

 

[Theige]

:3

Nobody cares about Ireland

 

[Ergo Sum]

This thread really sucks.

National Geographic had an excellent article recently about overpopulation that would be extremely pertinent to this discussion. To summarize:

A few highly relevant variables to do with the question of population are birth rates and life expectancy. The article explains that in the past 200 years medical and civil advances allowed health and life expectancy to increase dramatically, which, combined with increases in our capacity to feed mouths, meant that there were many more people living in the Western countries who could sustain this. The key, though, is that birth rates did not immediately respond to the changes in life expectancy, so a "hiccup" of dramatic population growth was experienced.

However, as we have seen, postindustrial countries have seen rapid declines in birth rate - in fact per-capita income has been correlated positively with declining birth rates. Our fears of overpopulation are fueled by this "hiccup" that sees brief, intense population growth before birth rates settle down to match extended life expectancy, when really it's only what demographers call the "demographic transition." Some countries are well beyond the transition, with sub-replacement birth rates (i.e. < about 2.1/family), like the Netherlands; others are in the middle of the transition, like India, which is approaching replacement rates; still others, mostly African countries, have not even seen the start.

The thesis is this: our fears of endless exponential population growth are laughable. Population is a function of birth rates and life expectancy, and as per-capita gains income rises worldwide, population will tend to level off - in fact we are nearing that point. The end of population growth is not so much a goal to be achieved as much as an economic inevitability should current trends continue. Of course, one can debate whether the "steady-state" level of population is sustainable in the long term, but much of the hysteria in this thread is due to misunderstandings.

 

[Cutlass]

Maybe I wasn't very clear, cities do produce but they produce everything with raw materials brought in from outside. And yes, even the Amish have adapted to using factory made tools & whatnot.

Anyway, this thread has gotten off on a tangent regarding Rome & now Hong Kong & the sustainability of cities. But my original point, that Brendan O’Neill is a dumbass, still holds.

The only places that are self sufficient are places with subsistence levels of food hunting/gathering/farming, or not far above that. Every other place has some degree of dependence on the wider world. And that's been true since towns and cities were invented. So if you want a true self sufficient community, you have to live one bad season above starvation.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's no need for that to be true, actually. With a proper workforce, it should be possible to make a land more productive than is necessary to be at subsistence. All that's needed is for the people to be able to produce more than the necessary calories on a regular basis, without needing to use all of their productive time.

 

[Cutlass]

But that requires tools above and beyond what a village can create.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's what I am saying doesn't need to be true
Remember, technology is the limiting factor. The modern human is vastly more intelligent and educated that the historical examples of agrarian society. The massive specialisation and trade of the modern world would necessarily lead to a decrease in lifestyle, but to assume that our capabilities would hover 'near subsistence' is an assumption. Why not assume that we'd be 10% below, and thus die of starvation (even in good seasons)? Why not assume that we'd be 10% higher, and thus capable of making sustainable progress?