In some of the most populous countries, the majority of people still live in a rural setting.

"Humanity has just crossed a major landmark in its history with the majority of people now living in cities."

I challenge their basic contention.

But if it were true, more selective sweeps for disease immunity might seem an obvious one.

I challenge their basic contention.


look some data up and cite it. your challenge is empty if you don't do that.

Bleh, I won't bother. I just did look it up - I guess they're right and I'm wrong, urbanisation had reached 49% of world population by 2005, so it must have passed the 50% mark by now.

I have to admit I'm surprised.

Razib:

Help me out. Don't know whether it's the earliness (of the day) or the lateness (of my age) but I just can't quite comprehend what's
meant (or included) by "our cognitive social intelligence doesn't scale up much past..."

I used to wonder how living in large cities might affect evolution, but now spend more time pondering how the net will change it.

The paper, in its entirety, is both a testament to and an illustration of the reasons for which Sociology is in comparatively low repute. This is to be seen especially in the authors' reference to the (presumably--to them) differences between "increasing returns" and "economies of scale."

That, for any aggregate of factors of production (what we'd call "inputs") there exists some quantitative combination optimum for the achievement of a given purpose--is certainly demonstrable empirically and leads to the understanding commonly known as "the law of diminishing returns." But, whether the economic understanding of the authors (or my audience) comprehends it or not, no observation of such phenomena, either in reality or in hypothetical situation, is necessary to the derivation of such "law." Rather, it's the logical (deductive) result of the fact that the things we call "inputs" are economic goods, i.e., things which are scarce, for which there are costs, and are thus objects of economizing. Only thorough incomprehension of basic relationships can yield such a concept as that of "increasing returns."

A related situation exists with regard to the (authors') understanding of "economies of scale." Both phenomena are the simple--again deductive,--inescapable conclusion of two facts. Firstly, that there are definite (though not always easily ascertainable) quantitative relationships between cause and effect. It's hardly "rocket science" to point out that, if that weren't true, there would be inputs (causes) of which any quantity, however small, would be capable of delivering unlimited outputs (effects). And, secondly, that various inputs, whether of naturally-occurring or humanly-produced origin, may have sizes, weights, shapes, and other features imposing discrete limitations on the manner of their employment.

Problems encountered by humans in solving their problems (read here "seeking satisfaction") consist almost entirely in adjusting the behavior called "action" to the uncertain future. Many such adjustments are individual--strictly personal--but there exist specific classes of people whose occupation in large part, consists in presumptively making specific adjustments for much larger groups.

The entrepreneur is one of these; he "takes a stab" at providing such solution as he imagines intended clientele will find satisfactory enough to reward him with profit. If successful, he's encouraged in to repeat. If not, his loss tends toward disqualification from further waste. His success may encourage other entrepreneurs in the same line (competitors), other lines, or in subordinate (but yet entrepreneurial) roles such as lender or investor. The entrepreneur, whether billionaire industrialist or street-based pretzel vendor, employs economic calculation, the simple comparison money values represented of his property to be devoted, other costs (including interest) and the value of his own engagement--in reaching his decision.

The other class frequently attempting to secure the happiness of others is government. By and large, their frequent failure arises from two sources: 1.) the inability to use "value of their property" as a cost of the benefit to be produced; and, 2.) an incapacity for appreciation of risk to continued possession of such property as an outcome of failure.

To the entrepreneur, the customer is a fickle "boss" whose tastes he must forecast and satisfy better than others in order to keep his position, wealth, and income. To government functionaries (including especially those involved in "planning" and in institutional settings separate from but associated with government), the people affected by the policies to be implemented are, themselves, seen in the role of property with whose care and maintenance they have been charged but who are not, themselves, in position to affect his own welfare directly.

My immediately preceding point is admirably illustrated by the addended authors' note that
they "declare no conflict of interest"; they wouldn't recognize one if it "jumped up an' bit 'em"--likely because it's mainly other people that suffer the bite.

Help me out. Don't know whether it's the earliness (of the day) or the lateness (of my age) but I just can't quite comprehend what's
meant (or included) by "our cognitive social intelligence doesn't scale up much past..."

this.

'Towns' do matter, or in Greek 'Polis's do matter. One of the reasons that 'behavioral economics' doesn't really work is that it works best on small groups of humans living in relative autarkia, kind of like the EEA as it were. It doesn't scale.

Razib's 'Homo Urbanis' is another way of saying 'Homo Economicus' or 'rational economic man'. The old word for 'rational economic man' was 'bougeois', which literally means 'town dweller'. The observation isn't new but is intelligent.

It will now be easier than at any time in the last 10,000 years to wipe out half of mankind.

Wow, gene berman, you seem pretty hardcore into the Austrian thing. What do you think of the recent dispute over the nature of Austrian economics and its relation to the broader field of econ going on at the austrianeconomists blog between Peter Leeson, Joe Salerno, Dan Klein and others? I know I'm not an authority on anything, but taking advantage of the insights of others (especially public choice) and preferring research on economic history over rehashing the history of economic thought seem sensible to me.

Between small bands and cities there are these: http://luke.lea.googlepages.com/home

'Towns' do matter, or in Greek 'Polis's do matter. One of the reasons that 'behavioral economics' doesn't really work is that it works best on small groups of humans living in relative autarkia, kind of like the EEA as it were. It doesn't scale.

Razib's 'Homo Urbanis' is another way of saying 'Homo Economicus' or 'rational economic man'.

That's going overboard, village style cooperation isn't viable city wide but I doubt this make city dwellers act like "rational economic man," any cooperation game data or some such to support that?

Table one of the paper is just great: Real food for thought. Cities seem to be great places to build ideas as well as transportation networks. Heck, they're great places for any kind of social process that relies on meeting lots of different people, as this article implies.

Cities have been a vibrant topic of economic research in the last decade or so; I might mention Harvard's Ed Glaeser on the empirical side and a wide variety of folks (see 2.1 of this Princeton syllabus) on the theory side. People in this area tend to pay deep respect to Jane Jacobs, whose books are a great jumping-off point on the topic.

I've wondered if cities selected for the ability to cooperate with strangers--there are lots of mechanisms that might help to do this--patience, impulse control, intelligence, to name a few--and that ability would likely be more valuable in a city than in a small town.

"I've wondered if cities selected for the ability to cooperate with strangers--there are lots of mechanisms that might help to do this--patience, impulse control, intelligence, to name a few--and that ability would likely be more valuable in a city than in a small town."

Standard lore among lawyers - see this - runs the opposite way; lawyers in large cities are more likely to have confrontational styles in negotiation and litigation, possibly because they're less likely to keep encountering the same opponents over and over.