The bane of cities

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Or so the saying goes. Today I would like to discuss this idea in relation to cities; I believe that the larger a city is, it crashes more spectacularly, and is even far more likely to crash in the first place.

The logic behind my theory is simple: During the Industrial Revolution, cities and urban population soared as more and more people flocked to factory work. Ever since, cities have become increasingly larger and more populous. The percent of people who live in cities is steadily rising, and this trend does not look like it is going to slow down any time soon. However, there is also a serious disadvantage to this trend: as cities have become larger and larger, they have also become more vulnerable to both natural and man-made catastrophes.

Consider New York City as an example. In the 1800’s NYC was little more than a collection of hovels and shacks; pigs ran wild up and down what is now Broadway. However, back in those days there were farms located all around the city, and it was not overly dependent (at least in the short term) on trade and food shipments. But New York City today is another matter entirely. For example, imagine what would happen if all of the vehicles—trucks, trains, planes, boats—that take food into the Big Apple were to stop for some reason. The result is more dramatic than you might think: in a matter of days food riots would occur, probably followed by a mass exodus of hungry people in search of food. In a serious catastrophe, such as an EMP attack, this would result in a huge “death zone” that would spread for about a hundred miles around the city. The message is clear: as cities become larger, they become more dependent on the utilities and outside help that allowed them to grow in the first place. Once a city is bereft of these utilities, it inevitably crashes and is abandoned.

Also, note that large cities are also prime targets for terrorism, the fear of which has increased in the last decade or so. The reason that cities are more often targets is simple: effect. An attack on a rural area is less dramatic, and it is less likely to kill as many people. Can you think of the last time there was a terrorist attack on a rural or even suburban area? I can’t. Also, by this reasoning larger cities are more likely to be attacked, and because they house more people they are probably more vulnerable (easier for someone to slip in undetected). Cities are also breeding grounds for disease as well as prime spots to spread diseases; a plague is far more devastating to an urban area than a rural one.

But what can we do about this? How can we make our cities more resilient and less dependent? I am not sure if there is an answer. Making a city even slightly more independent would take an enormous amount of effort. There are so many aspects of cities that are dependent utilities and outside aid that fixing one will not solve the problem completely. However, I do have a few suggestions: vertical farming, which I have talked about before when discussing overpopulation, can solve a city’s food issues somewhat. Decentralizing water and energy systems can prevent a crisis from occurring if something happens to one facility. And energy independence for that city couldn’t hurt either. A security “ring” like the one New York has could help deter terrorism, though I believe that if a terrorist truly wanted to harm a big city there is little we could do. Beyond that, though, there is little we can do to make our cities less vulnerable.