Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are cities the new countries?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#81

Post by JoeAltmaier »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #79
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it would be impossible to get farmers to farm if they decide not to. And equally unlikely that city folks could do the job, cold. It'd be mass starvation and revolution.

If farmers don't grow, they might not get to live either. They don't get medicine, farming equipment, fertilizer, gasoline, electricity, cell phones, the Internet, clothes, or anything else they've come to depend on. A lot of farming is automated, using GPS and other systems to drive tractors with extreme accuracy. Without gasoline alone it would be impossible for many farmers to find the labor to grow what they do.…

...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else.

And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#82

Post by clamprecht »

Spooky23 wrote: post #74
wj wrote: post #71

When I submitted the (exact) same article last night I thought about how this topic was covered in a book I read titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Part of the premise was that people in some of the large (and prosperous) cities of the world have more in common with each other than they might with the many of the people of their own country. Due to the mobility offered by airlin…

That's a great example of the endgame of income inequality will transform the world. I find it sad, as that is the cynical world my children will inherit.

Honest question: Did you believe this before you had children, or did you realize it afterwards?

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#83

Post by nkoren »

walterbell wrote: post #80
nkoren wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in some ways it was more complicated; in other ways it was much simpler. Prior to Westphalia, the borders in Europe were predicated on religious affiliation. This made for a very complicated map. So Westphalia established the idea that a nation could be a superset which included both Catholics and Protestants. This makes for a simpler map -- if one is mapping the boundaries of the newly-established idea of nati…

Thanks for the thoughtful response. City-level economic exchange of creativity does interact with force monopolies via industrial espionage, now global thanks to networked computer systems.

Thanks for the good question. :-)

You're right of course, and this isn't going to stop anytime soon. Moreover, even if the world were to evolve towards city-states rather than nation-states, there would still undoubtedly be inter-state treaties governing things like trade / subsidies, copyright / intellectual property, extradition, tax avoidance, etc. These treaties would govern much of what has traditionally been done at a national level, and would render the local force-monopolisers -- whomever they might be -- as simply instruments of a larger system, rather than autonomous actors in their own right.

Indeed, one could argue that this is already the world that we're living in. We still draw maps and run political dog-and-pony shows based on national boundaries, but we're already living in a world of post-national urban economies and international treaties, both of which are only gaining strength these days.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#84

Post by ommunist »

There already was a page in the world history when struggle between cities was more important than power play between countries. Genova vs Venice was way more important for Europe and the Midfle East than London vs Paris in its time.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#85

Post by [deleted] »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59
vinceguidry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A state exists primarily to defend its polity against other states. It takes a lot of resources to maintain a military, accomplish geopolitical objectives, pursue a coherent foreign policy. Let's say we found aliens living in the next solar system. That would be the beginning of the global human state. Even if they're not hostile, humanity as a whole world need to band together to figure out just what to do about the…

Isn't that an oxymoron - multiple pan-national states? You're only supposed to need one. Anyway, I predict when other people are discovered in another solar system, then each nation on Earth will attempt to have a relationship with them and it will be business as usual. Why would America or China agree on the best policy vs interstellar trade? They agree on so little else!

[deleted]

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#86

Post by vinceguidry »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #59
vinceguidry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A state exists primarily to defend its polity against other states. It takes a lot of resources to maintain a military, accomplish geopolitical objectives, pursue a coherent foreign policy. Let's say we found aliens living in the next solar system. That would be the beginning of the global human state. Even if they're not hostile, humanity as a whole world need to band together to figure out just what to do about the…

Isn't that an oxymoron - multiple pan-national states? You're only supposed to need one. Anyway, I predict when other people are discovered in another solar system, then each nation on Earth will attempt to have a relationship with them and it will be business as usual. Why would America or China agree on the best policy vs interstellar trade? They agree on so little else!

That's why I said it would be the beginning of the new state. It wouldn't happen overnight. But it's bound to happen.

The fundamental axiom of geopolitics is that when confronted with a threat, humans consistently identify with the people they are closest to and most like. Family first, then tribe, village, region, country.

The size of the threat begets a corresponding organizational response. We don't cooperate all that well with China now, but you can better believe that if there were a compelling reason to, like, say, aliens in our back yard, we'd figure it out in a hurry.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#87

Post by Spooky23 »

clamprecht wrote: post #82
Spooky23 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great example of the endgame of income inequality will transform the world. I find it sad, as that is the cynical world my children will inherit.

Honest question: Did you believe this before you had children, or did you realize it afterwards?

More afterwards. For me, getting acquainted with schools again has made academic discussion more real.

Also, watching the changes in industries I interact with at work over the last decade has been eye opening.

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#88

Post by gherkin0 »

Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #79
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it would be impossible to get farmers to farm if they decide not to. And equally unlikely that city folks could do the job, cold. It'd be mass starvation and revolution.

If farmers don't grow, they might not get to live either. They don't get medicine, farming equipment, fertilizer, gasoline, electricity, cell phones, the Internet, clothes, or anything else they've come to depend on. A lot of farming is automated, using GPS and other systems to drive tractors with extreme accuracy. Without gasoline alone it would be impossible for many farmers to find the labor to grow what they do.…

But of all those that are requirements (not internet, etc.), are medium-term requirements at best, and farmers are probably in a better position to adapt to losing them than a city population is to losing its food. For instance: people only need medicine if they're sick and farms can grow crops without fertilizer, gasoline, and electricity (just not enough to feed billions).

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#89

Post by flubert »

wj wrote: post #71

When I submitted the (exact) same article last night I thought about how this topic was covered in a book I read titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making. Part of the premise was that people in some of the large (and prosperous) cities of the world have more in common with each other than they might with the many of the people of their own country. Due to the mobility offered by airlin…

You may also like:

"Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite"

http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/dead-souls-the-den...

"Debates over national identity are a pervasive characteristic of our time. In part, they raise rhetorical questions, but they also have profound implications for American society and American policy at home and abroad. Different perceptions--especially between the citizenry and the more cosmopolitan elites--of what constitutes national identity generate different national interests and policy priorities.

The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability--within acceptable conditions for evolution--of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting American values abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism."

Re: Are cities the new countries?

#90

Post by Zach_the_Lizard »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #81
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If farmers don't grow, they might not get to live either. They don't get medicine, farming equipment, fertilizer, gasoline, electricity, cell phones, the Internet, clothes, or anything else they've come to depend on. A lot of farming is automated, using GPS and other systems to drive tractors with extreme accuracy. Without gasoline alone it would be impossible for many farmers to find the labor to grow what they do.…

...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else. And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what. Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.

> ...thus my observation that cities are not the center of the universe - they depend on the whole ecosystem just like everybody else.

It goes both ways: cities depend on farms and farms depend on cities. Neither can sustain its way of life without the other.

>And, here's a secret, every farmer has land and can have a garden. They will eat no matter what.

Here's a secret: not every farmer owns land. There are about 6 million farm workers in the US and about 3 million owners of farmland.

About half of farms are owner-operated and about half have a landlord renting out the land to a farmer or farmers.

The landlords actually have fairly concentrated holdings, with roughly 8% of the landlords holding half of the rented out land, or about 25% of the total amount of farmland.

In a situation in which farmers refuse to grow food, these landlords would lose their rents and have a very strong incentive to A) kick off the farmers who refuse to grow and B) get someone to grow food since the prices of foods would have gone through the roof.

These farmers will starve.

> Sure they need that oil and gps, to produce enough food for 10,000 people. But they just need their hands to feed themselves. So no, they aren't going to starve, or even suffer very much.

They need oil and gas for things beyond food for themselves. Heating and cooking, for instance, require a good bit of firewood. In colder climates it can take many acres to keep warm. Even in the Southern United States it can get cold enough to kill during the winter.

Many wells are deep enough that they require pumps to get water out. Guess what powers them? Electricity. Since lots of farmers own land in places that couldn't be grown on without irrigation, such as the desert, things are going to start sucking really quick.

Electricity also powers refrigerators and freezers, which enable food to keep for much longer periods of time and reduce the risk of foodborne illness. Without trade, are these farmers going to have access to salt to cure meats? Are they going to know how to properly store food without any refrigeration? They certainly won't have the ice cutting industry of the 1800s.

Gas also provides the transportation to get medicine, clothes, blankets, seeds, tools, pesticides, and fertilizer. Without cities, farmers would also not have accurate weather forecasting, something that is quite important for them.

TL;DR I think you vastly underestimate the difficulties of subsistence farming without modern technology or the benefits of trade between cities and farms

Source for statistics: https://www.census.gov/prod/1/statbrief/sb93_10.pdf

Post reply on HN