The urban planet and implications for society
In an earlier posting I pointed out that as of today we live on an urban planet. In 2008, for the first time in history, a majority of the world’s 6.6 billion population were recorded as living in towns and cities.
The implications really are incredible:
- The pace of acceleration. As recently as 1841, England was a rural country as a majority of its people lived in villages or hamlets. In 1851, it became the first urban country as the census taken in that year finally showed a majority of its citizens living in cities. At that time, with around 1.2 billion people on the planet, around 90% of the global population would have been classified as living in rural environments.Now, as Vietnam enters the industrial era (in 2007 industrial output overtook agricultural for the first time) we hear that just over half of the 6.6 billion people alive right now live in towns and cities. When England became the first urban country, London became cloaked in smog; as planet Earth becomes urbanised I wonder whether Ozone holes and climate change are the price that we will pay.
- How to provide for ever-greater numbers of people in ill-health (particularly the elderly). When the welfare state was established (1949) there were around nine people of working age for every person who was retired, and the latter had a life expectency of around three years from retirement. Today, there are around four people of working age for every person who is retired, and (thanks to expensive medication, amongst other things) the average life expectency of a senior citizen upon retirement is at least ten years. By 2060, the ratio of working age to retired will by 2060 have fallen as as low as two to one. A third of the population will be over 65 and nearly half of retired people will be over 80. Source: William Reville writing about a Eurostat news release.
We see politicians wrestling with the implications every day. What should they do? Reduce state pensions? Raise taxes? Open the borders to immigrants? Raise the retirement age? As ever, the answer seems to be “Do all of them, but don’t admit to doing any of them”.In Russia, they have opted for another scenario: they are presently paying young mothers around £6500 every time they have another child. This scenario is likely to be copied by many countries (for instance, the European Union, which is heading for a 40 million shortfall in people of working age). While this may produce a workforce able to support the elderly, it also places an even greater burden on natural resouces and distribution systems linked to urbanisation.
- How to ensure equitable distribution of natural resources. Forget food, oil and gas. Over the next 100 years, access to water is predicted to become the chief cause of conflict. In anticipation of this, Singapore, second only to Rotterdam in the global oil-refining stakes, is presently attempting to become water self-sufficient. It is doing so for military as well as social and economic reasons.The reason is that as governments expand their populations and seek to protect the welfare of their citizens, they will come under pressure from their own people to annexe natural resources such as water. Rivers which flow across two countries might, for instance, be dammed to keep the water upstream. As countries seek to protect their own citizens, staking claim to water, gas, oil and food, the most likely outcome for all is war.
- Moore versus Malthus. Previously, we have relied on a form of Moore’s Law to get us out of situations like this. While demand for state support increased, so did productivity. By using machinery and technology we were able to create more goods for sale, which increased state revenue. It is possible that similar technological innovations will spare us this time (or at least delay the inevitable). However, there comes a point at which everyone who wants one has one, or where they have run out of money. For the moment, the latter is true. Urbanisation is an attempt to bring more people into the market, but it will bring its own price.
Two quick examples come to mind. Firstly, as fast as the population is expanding, the size of cities is expanding faster. In other words, every time we build a city we destroy more arable land than is required to sustain the people within it. Secondly, cities are remarkably good at spreading disease and trapping people during disasters. Should a man-made pandemic like HN51 reach any urban environment, Malthus (who predicted that when populations expand too fast they inevitably encounter massive loss) will succeed Moore as most significant predictor of our times.So what does this mean for disadvantage? The desire to look after an increasingly elderly population is already leading governments to amplify the problem by encouraging a rise in the birth rate. The subsequent rise in demand for natural resources will almost certainly lead to war. The natural consequence of that will be hunger, disease, and millions of refugees.
Welcome to the 21st century.


