The Risks of Too Much City

[marmar]

from CommonDreams.org:

Published on Monday, December 18, 2006 by the Washington Post
The Risks of Too Much City
by Jeremy Rifkin

The coming year marks a great milestone in the human saga, a development similar in magnitude to the agricultural era and the Industrial Revolution. For the first time in history, a majority of human beings will be living in vast urban areas, many in megacities and suburban extensions with populations of 10 million or more, according to the United Nations. We have become "Homo Urbanus."

Two hundred years ago, the average person on Earth might meet 200 to 300 people in a lifetime. Today a resident of New York City can live and work among 220,000 people within a 10-minute radius of his home or office in midtown Manhattan.

Only one city in all of history -- ancient Rome -- boasted a population of more than a million before the 19th century. London became the first modern city with a population over 1 million in 1820. Today 414 cities boast populations of a million or more, and there's no end in sight.

As long as the human race had to rely on solar flow, the winds and currents, and animal and human power to sustain life, the population remained relatively low to accommodate nature's carrying capacity: the biosphere's ability to recycle waste and replenish resources. The tipping point was the exhuming of large amounts of stored sun, first in the form of coal deposits, then oil and natural gas.

Harnessed by the steam engine and later the internal combustion engine and converted to electricity and distributed across power lines, fossil fuels allowed humanity to create new technologies that dramatically increased food production and manufactured goods and services. The unprecedented increase in productivity led to runaway population growth and the urbanization of the world.

No one is really sure whether this turning point in human living arrangements ought to be celebrated, lamented or merely acknowledged. That's because our burgeoning population and urban way of life have been purchased at the expense of vast ecosystems and habitats.

Cultural historian Elias Canetti once remarked that each of us is a king in a field of corpses. If we were to stop for a moment and reflect on the number of creatures and the amount of Earth's resources and materials we have expropriated and consumed in our lifetime, we would be appalled at the carnage and depletion used to secure our existence.

Large populations living in megacities consume massive amounts of the Earth's energy to maintain their infrastructures and daily flow of human activity. The Sears Tower in Chicago alone uses more electricity in a single day than the city of Rockford, Ill., with 152,000 people. Even more amazing, our species now consumes nearly 40 percent of the net primary production on Earth -- the amount of solar energy converted to plant organic matter through photosynthesis -- even though we make up only one-half of 1 percent of the animal biomass of the planet. This means less for other species to use.

The flip side of urbanization is what we are leaving behind on our way to a world of hundred-story office buildings, high-rise residences and landscapes of glass, cement, artificial light and electronic interconnectivity. It's no accident that as we celebrate the urbanization of the world, we are quickly approaching another historic watershed: the disappearance of the wild. Rising population; growing consumption of food, water and building materials; expanding road and rail transport; and urban sprawl continue to encroach on the remaining wild, pushing it to extinction.

Scientists tell us that within the lifetime of today's children, the wild will disappear from the face of the earth. The Trans-Amazon Highway, which cuts across the entire expanse of the Amazon rain forest, is hastening the obliteration of the last great wild habitat. Other remaining wild regions, from Borneo to the Congo Basin, are fast diminishing with each passing day, making way for growing human populations in search of living space and resources.

It's no wonder that (according to Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson) we are experiencing the greatest wave of mass extinction of animal species in 65 million years. We are losing 50 to 150 species to extinction per day, or between 18,000 and 55,000 species a year. By 2100 two-thirds of the Earth's remaining species are likely to be extinct.

Where does this leave us? Try to imagine 1,000 cities of a million or more just 35 years from now. It boggles the mind and is unsustainable for Earth. I don't want to spoil the party, but perhaps the commemoration of the urbanization of the human race in 2007 might be an opportunity to rethink the way we live.

Certainly there is much to applaud about urban life: its rich cultural diversity and social intercourse and its dense commercial activity. But the question is one of magnitude and scale. We need to ponder how best to lower our population and develop sustainable urban environments that use energy and resources more efficiently, are less polluting and better designed to foster living arrangements on a human scale.

In the great era of urbanization we have increasingly shut off the human race from the rest of the natural world in the belief that we could conquer, colonize and utilize the riches of the planet to ensure our autonomy without dire consequences to us and future generations. In the next phase of human history, we will need to find a way to reintegrate ourselves into the rest of the living Earth if we are to preserve our own species and conserve the planet for our fellow creatures.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of "The Age of Access" and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1218-31.htm

[Kagemusha]

1. No Asian city hit a million, or do they just not count?

Just wondering. Because it's a statistic I keep hearing (re: Rome)...

[marmar]

2. Good question....Perhaps the 1 million mark is a relatively modern phenomenon for Asia too?

Perhaps none of the cities of the ancient Asian dynasties cracked 1 million, but I don't know.

[happyslug]

4. Most Ancient populations are estimates.

But are believed to be reliable. Constantinople and Baghdad had populations over 1/2 mill prior to 1204 for Constantinople (The date of the Sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade) and 1258 for Baghdad (When the Mongols took the city which they called the greatest city they had ever taken, by 1258 the Mongols had almost all of China which gives you an idea of how large the Cities of China were at that time period).

Cities with large Population need an extensive way to get food into the city. Rome did this by being in the Richest Agriculture region in Europe AND importation of Grain from Egypt and North Africa. After the wars of the 6th Century Rome cease to be a city it had been, Constantinople became the largest city in the world, drawing Grain from Egypt till about 650 AD and the Arab Conquest and then from the Ukraine till 1204. Baghdad drew from the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia.

The basic thought is that the Arabs believe Baghdad was smaller then Constantinople at the height of both cities and the Mongols comment on Baghdad being the largest city they ever conquered (With Comment from Constantinople it was only 1/2 the size of Rome at Rome's height).

The only alternatives that MAY compete with Rome, Constantinople and Baghdad were Ancient Ctesphon (Capital of Persia and eastern Mesopotamia during the time of the Roman Empire), Ancient Babylon (prior to and including the time of Alexandria the Great), and Nijing (Under various Names). All of these cities (Except Nijing) were compared to Rome in Ancient text, with Rome coming out on top a a general rule.

Now, while food was an important factor, other trade was important for as these capital cities expanded wealth returned to these cities. With that wealth traders came to trade for that wealth. After a while Trade became more important then conquest. Thus trade built on trade. These cities is were you went when you wanted something you could not get locally. These Capital Cities is where you went when you had something different to sell. This trade is what really made these cities take off in population and even survive (For Example Constantinople is NOT to believe to have suffered a population drop after the loses of the Arab Conquest, in fact it might have GAINED population given the new trading opportunities from territories opened up to trade by the Arab Conquest).

The third factor is the ability to keep Foreign invaders from taking the city. If a city is taken, its ability to attract trade decline rapidly. Baghdad never recovered from the Mongol Invasion till about 1800. Constantinople never truly survived the Fourth Crusade, the City of Rome's decline started when it was first sacked in 410 AD (Through how and what was to be sacked was agreed to in terms by the Citizens of the City of Rome and the Goths so not much of a Sack). The Vandals came in the 460s and looted for months (But again agreed to leave a lot of private property alone). It is the Vandal Sacking that seems to start the economic decline of the City of Rome (as opposed to the Roman Empire which had been in decline for Centuries at this point). The fall of the Empire in the West was peaceful as far as the city of Rome was concerned and seems to have NO affect on Rome trade or Size. The real problem started in the 530s as Justinian launched his attempt to retake the Western Empire. In a ten year period Rome fell five times, Three times to the Romans fighting for Justinian and Twice for the Goths defending what had been their since the late 400s. This was the death blow, after 530 Rome never exceeded 100,000 till the 1600s and only recently became again the largest City in Italy (Milan was the largest City for most of the 20th Century).

Thus these three factor are the determining factors in the size of any city, how much food can get to the city, how much trade did it support, and can it stay safe from any attacker. This is often difficult to determine and historians often disagree but here is a website that tries to estimate the largest City of the World for the last 5000 years:
http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011201a.htm

I have some problem with this list, for example it list Constantinople have a population of 500,000 by 340 AD (Or it might be saying that Constantinople passed Rome as the largest City in 340 AD but only reached 500,000 in 500 AD). This is a problem, for while Constantine moved the Capital to Constantinople, it was a tiny administrative headquarters compared to Rome till about 400 when finally it was accepted as a co-Capital with Rome (at which point the population of Constantinople shoot up, but Rome was still the larger city till the Wars to retake Italy Justinian started about 530 AD which lead to the population of Rome dropping to Zero at one point when the Gothic King vacated Rome and took all of its citizens with him).

The list states that Baghdad was larger then Constantinople by 1000 AD, which is NOT reflected in opinions I have read of the time period. Constantinople was still the place to go in 1000 AD (Through Baghdad was also a place to go, Viking reached BOTH places to trade). Another problem giving Rome a population of 450,000 in 100 AD, Alexander a population of 250,000, Antioch 150,000 and Carthage 100,000. The problem in my mind is Antioch (Alexandria having 1/2 the population of Rome is another problem but again one of degree more than anything else). Carthage was considered the second largest City in the Western Empire as late as the Arab Conquest (It could draw on North African Grain AND trade from central Africa). Alexandria was Considered the Second largest City in the Roman Empire (It could draw on Egyptian grain). My problem is Antioch with a population of 250,000? Where did it gets its food? Mesopotamian was under Parthian rule not Roman Rule, Egypt grain was aimed at Rome and Alexandria (Some could be to other areas but the main thrust was these two cities). Where did Antioch gets its food? I can NOT see Antioch beating out Carthage in population in 100 AD, the trade with Persia was NOT that great.

I think the problem is the author is trying to off-set Europe centric bias but by doing so he is downplaying the Population of Rome and Constantinople. One way to see this is the list for 1500 which gives Constantinople's population at 200,000. This I believe is high, you had population drop do to the final conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks, but the real drop in population occurred between 1204 and 1453 as people left the City a it declined further under the Latin Empire and then the restored Greeks. 200,000 would make Constantinople in 1500 larger than Paris or London which by 1500 I have doubts (In 1204 on the other had several Paris or Londons of the time period could fit nicely inside Constantinople, but that is 1204 NOT 1500).

One good thing about this list it does show the problem of comparing populations of ancient cities. Some time it is just plan impossible to do so. One of the reason is Capital Cities tended to draw in a lot of traders from the rest of the Country. These traders would trade and then go back home. Thus you often had one large City (For example Rome at over a million people) supported by hundreds of small cites with population of less than 20,000 (if that high). Constantinople and Baghdad were the same till both were sacked (and the same regarded ancient Babylon which is one of the first cities to exceed 1/2 million population).

If you use this list look at it with care. Remember any city over 20,000 people has to draw in food from large distances and prior to the Railroad that meant ships and only ships. Prior to the Dark ages (Roughly 500-1000 AD) wagons did not even have ball-bearing so what weight you could carry on a wagon was limited. As to the cities themselves, Baghdad has its two rivers, Alexandria and later Cairo has the Nile, Rome had the Mediterranean, Constantinople has the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Thus all could be feed. Beijing has the sea but is way north of the major rivers of China so its population probably never exceeded 100,000 till after 1800. Nicking on the other hand could draw from both "Wheat" and "Rice" China so its population could be much higher but since about 950 AD the Capital of China tended to the north do to the major threats to China were from the North. Thus while Nicking probably was a Trading center, it could NOT be the center of the Country like Rome was to the Roman Empire (Or Constantinople was from 400-1204 AD).

As to India, no one ever ruled India as one united Country (Even the British ruled India based on its "independent" states till independence in 1947). The Mongols did try for 200 years but failed. Thus while India has the rivers to ship the food to the Capital, it never had the unity to produce a high population Capital city. Some of of the Indian City became quite large but none over 100,000 till British Rule.

Thus once you look at the restrictions cities must live under in pre-railroad days, you had very few cities that could go over 100,000 people without violating one of the three requirements, of bring a large city. Those requirements are being a Capital City so trade can occur, an ability to feed its large population and the ability to protect the city from falling to an enemy.

Here is another Cite that Claims Rome was 1 million Population for about 300 years and then the text city was Chargan in China during the Tang Dynasty (800 AD). Than goes with Baghdad as the next 1 million population city in 1000 AD.
http://faculty.washington.edu/modelski/WcitiesH.htm

A cite on Population of the Roman Empire:
http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm


For more on Rome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome

[Kagemusha]

5. Thank you for the very informative answer.

I'm enriched by knowing more about the history of cities. It also puts estimates of city sizes into an excellent perspective. I'm very appreciative.

[RC]

3. Our numbers will fall when we

start using each other for food.