Some 10-15 years ago, the number of urban residents on planet Earth was less than the number of those who live in the countryside. Not much, but still. Today their number has approximately equalized, and the tendency is that the rural population will become less and less every year, and the number of urban ones will increase. Is this good or bad, and will not irreconcilable contradictions arise between them in the end?
WHEN AND WHY
When is clear. The very first cities, as the science of archeology teaches us, arose about 9 thousand years ago. Maximum 10. Earlier dates refer to speculations that are not sufficiently confirmed by facts, and therefore it is not worth talking about them. Actually, the emergence of the city coincides in time with the birth of the state, as a more advanced form of organization of human society in comparison with the tribal one. Which, in turn, also arose not just like that, but with the advent of settledness, writing, the ability to melt metal and cultivate the land. That is, the answer to the question "why" is not so difficult. New relations between people and nature, as well as (and this is the main thing) between people and people, required a new organization of life. The result of which was the city. Ur, Memphis, Jerusalem, Mohenjo-Daro, Jericho … The names of the first cities sound,like ancient and mysterious music. Some of them have long turned into a legend, some are still alive and perform all the same functions as thousands of years ago - they protect a person from a hostile environment and give him the opportunity to build a civilization.
WORLD IS A VILLAGE
But before the emergence of the first cities, for tens of thousands of years, humanity lived exclusively in villages. And until relatively recently, the absolute majority of the world's population did not live in the city. In 1900, for example, only 13% were city dwellers, and in the early 60s of the last century, when mankind had already entered space, only a third. All the rest are villagers. Starting from wild and semi-wild tribes living in Africa, South America and Indonesia, and ending with the citizens of developed civilized countries. Let's say more. And the inhabitants of the cities, for the most part, are, in fact, yesterday's villagers. In any case, it was still some half a century ago, not to mention a hundred or two hundred years. Because the noticeable migration of people from village to city began only with the beginning of the industrial revolution,what happened just about two hundred years ago, when manual labor was replaced by machine labor everywhere in cities. And before that there is nothing to say - the whole world, one might say, was rural. And the mentality of the average city dweller was not that much different from the mentality of the villager. In any case, they were almost equally close to nature. And, since the division of labor has not yet reached today's indicators, when the middle-level city manager does not know from which end they take a shovel or a plow (yes, many in the Russian countryside still use a real grandfather's plow to plow a vegetable garden!) and how the field of winter crops looks, then they had the same skills. And the mentality of the average city dweller was not that much different from the mentality of the villager. In any case, they were almost equally close to nature. And, since the division of labor has not yet reached today's indicators, when the middle-level city manager does not know from which end they take a shovel or a plow (yes, many in the Russian countryside still use a real grandfather's plow to plow a vegetable garden!) and how the field of winter crops looks, then they had the same skills. And the mentality of the average city dweller was not that much different from the mentality of the villager. In any case, they were almost equally close to nature. And, since the division of labor has not yet reached today's indicators, when the middle-level city manager does not know from which end they take a shovel or a plow (yes, many in the Russian countryside still use a real grandfather's plow to plow a vegetable garden!) and how the field of winter crops looks, then they had the same skills.many in the Russian village still use a real grandfather's plow to plow a vegetable garden!) and what a winter field looks like, they had the same skills.many in the Russian village still use a real grandfather's plow to plow a vegetable garden!) and what a winter field looks like, they had the same skills.
And now those who live and were even born in the city, let them remember their mothers and fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers, as well as great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers. We can guarantee that most of the mothers and fathers have already been born and raised in the village, and there is no talk of grandfathers and great-grandmothers - all are village.
Promotional video:
PROGRESS AND CONFRONTATION
So where did this confrontation (not direct, of course, but still) come from between the inhabitants of the city and the village, which they talk about and which we have been observing for almost a hundred years? Here, perhaps, it would be appropriate to recall the words of the famous German thinker Oswald Spengler. This is what he wrote in his work "The Decline of Europe: Essays on the Morphology of World History": "… all great cultures were urban. The "tall" man of the second millennium is an animal that builds cities. This is its own criterion of "world history", radically different from the history of mankind in general. World history is the history of a city man. Peoples, states, politics and religion, all kinds of arts, all sciences are based on one most ancient phenomenon of human existence - on the city. " And again, from the same place: “The village stands apart from world history … The peasant is an eternal person,not dependent on the culture nesting in the cities. He was before her and will remain after her, confining himself to land-related professions and abilities. A mystical soul, a dry, eternal source of blood that makes history in cities. " One can argue with something in Spengler's thoughts, but basically he is right - it is the city that is the engine and focus of all that we call progress and civilization. Science, art, literature, technology - all this is a city. And, therefore, the faster the above develops, the faster cities and, consequently, the urban population grow. Who, for the most part, begins to consider themselves smarter, more educated and in some ways even better than the villagers. Looks down at them. It is quite natural that the villagers respond in kind to the townspeople. But woe to those states in which people come to power,with a strong village mentality. Not because such is bad in itself, not at all. But because, as we wrote above, the very concept of "state" is inseparable from the concept of "city". Due to the original, essential, root causes. They are essentially the same thing. Therefore, the citizens should run the state. Of course, taking into account the interests of the village.
THE CITY IS THE KINGDOM AND THE VILLAGE IS PARADISE
The proverb says. And, as is most often the case, she is absolutely right. The kingdom is the state (read - city). That is, order, power, hierarchy, finance, division of labor and progress. But for the Russian people, a hundred years ago almost 80% of peasants, the city, with all its undoubted merits, could not be a paradise. But the village - yes. After all, what is paradise in the popular and Christian concept? The original place in which a person lived before his exile to the present sinful world. The purest water and air. The land is rich in fruits and all life. Honest, simple and straightforward relationship. Finally, a noble and gracious work. In general, an ideal village, no matter how you look at it. And the city? In the same people's peasant-village consciousness, it is, first of all, the focus of all temptation and sin, noise, vanity,dirty air and poor quality food. Not complete hell yet, but somewhere close. They went to the city to work, but then they always returned home, to their family, to their origins. Origins is the right word. The village is our source, no matter how pretentious this maxim may sound. Pure, giving spiritual and physical strength, inexhaustible (unless, of course, it is deliberately or foolishly not blocked). Therefore, we have nowhere to go without a village. Let cities grow, science, culture and industry develop. Progress is accelerating. Statehood and civilization are growing stronger. But let there always be places on our earth that are most like paradise. Countryside places.no matter how pretentious this maxim may sound. Pure, giving spiritual and physical strength, inexhaustible (unless, of course, it is deliberately or foolishly not blocked). Therefore, we have nowhere to go without a village. Let cities grow, science, culture and industry develop. Progress is accelerating. Statehood and civilization are growing stronger. But let there always be places on our earth that are most like paradise. Countryside places.no matter how pretentious this maxim may sound. Pure, giving spiritual and physical strength, inexhaustible (unless, of course, it is deliberately or foolishly not blocked). Therefore, we have nowhere to go without a village. Let cities grow, science, culture and industry develop. Progress is accelerating. Statehood and civilization are growing stronger. But let there always be places on our earth that are most like paradise. Countryside places.
Akim Bukhtatov
