Villages and cities have been the two complementary components of human civilization since the beginning of it. In simple terms, villages are the basis of habitat. Everything from commerce to culture in villages is basic. Whereas, urbanity is all about progression. All things advanced, of life and living, are standard in urban areas. Some say such discrepancies are unfair; others justify the difference of living standards. I equivocate with the latter.
It is important that one understands the economic motivation of having geographically separate cities and villages. As said before, villages are basics, and cities are the advanced options of habitat, like product lines of a shoe brand. Such artificial diversification is necessary to keep up with the diverse tastes and needs of people. Cities are costly, but come with many amenities. Villages are not well-ornate but comfortably within the affordability of most people. Also, if there was only one mode of living all over, then people would have no higher option to look up to, which in effect acts as motivation for personal economic development, or no safer and more affordable choice that we can resort to in troubled times.
Aside from the economic formulae, there are social reasons for having distinct cities and villages. Rural and urban people have identifiably different cultural identities. True that there often are bilateral transitions of socio-cultural traits and behaviors between villages and cities, but for thousands of years, they have never been identical. This proves the existence of people’s choice – to have urban and rural areas in their geographically and socio-economically separated spaces.
Living standards are risingeveryday and it is felt in cities first. That is because cities are the places of development, unlike the rural niches, which we cannot afford to experiment with. It is true that advanced amenities are almost solely urban properties, but it is alright, in my judgment, as long as the basic necessities are available in the villages.
|
