R: Raze the Metropolis

The three wealthiest countries in the world per capita are Qatar, Luxembourg, and Singapore. What is the one trait that these three countries share? More than 90% of their populations live in cities. Additionally, when looking at some of the worlds poorest countries— especially on the African continent— there exists a strong, direct correlation between GDP and Urbanization. Perhaps not every city creates wealth, and not every wealthy country is hyper-urban, but the data support the proposition that cities and urbanization generate a higher GDP and lead to a higher quality of life. As many in our party are well trained to do, however, must we look past merely monetary metrics? Are there other, non-quantitative ways to measure human flourishing? In cities, living costs are higher, air quality is worse, there exist higher crime rates, citizens have less property, and as we have seen this past year, disease spreads much more quickly. Given the current world population, every human being could be given five acres of land to control. Is this not a better solution?

The origin of the metropolis, while complex, is generally understood through the lens of specialization, and division of labor. As humans became more advanced— transitioning from hunter-gatherers to farmers— the labor of those cultivating the necessities of life became more efficient. In other words, as technology progressed, the work of one farmer provided necessities for not just one person, but, as of now, 155. Thus, for every farmer, there can exist 154 others who are not strictly providing the necessities for his or her own existence. This food surplus drove not only the development of the metropolis, but also the development of language, science, literature, philosophy, art, and many other disciplines that we as Federalists laud. Along with this, however, the metropolis has led to, what one might call an “urban disposition.” That is, a community of people that prefer globalism to localism, efficiency to beauty, and wealth to virtue. 

Central to this debate are several questions. First, at what point does a city become a metropolis? Are we also in favor of razing the kinds of towns that pepper the Sicilian countryside? If not, how do we distinguish between a town and a city? Also, are cities necessary for innovation? If so, are we ready to give up this innovation for the cause of virtue? At what point is a metropolis too big? Finally, is this “urban disposition” a product of the metropolis? Its flawed leaders? Or its citizens?