In our times the course of things is perhaps even somehow too rapid. As one politician of the twentieth century said, what has been done for centuries is now done in a year, what has happened over decades is now taking place over the months and weeks. The world, its trends, change, sometimes not even having time to get any stronger, everything moves and everything changes from one another. But there are several trends that, in general, act inexorably. Among them is urbanization. Beginning massively in the countries of Europe of the XVI century, it continues to this day, devastating villages and small towns in favor of large and noisy cities. It seems to be inevitable. But is this a useful process to watch him indifferently, as to having no value and consequences?

Cities - and especially large cities - always have lower levels of fertility than villages and small towns. This law is the same - from Reykjavik to Singapore, from Buenos Aires to Tokyo, the birth rate in cities, with perhaps some minor exceptions, is always lower than in villages and towns of the same countries and regions. The impact of urbanization on the demographics of the nation as a whole is understandable, and hardly anyone from the liberal camp will argue with him — but the moral and sociological aspects of the issue are important.

From the point of view of tradition, it is important that small towns and villages create a completely different type of society, different from a large metropolis. A person in a megalopolis is left to himself (this phenomenon is often called the atomization of society) and loses connections with his relatives / neighbors and close ones (for obvious reasons). But it is even more regrettable that a person often (though not always) loses moral standards and values, since a large city (where each person is an independent person) “frees” people from direct responsibility for their actions, contrary to morality ( here are the problems of an urbanized society). It is not a secret for anyone that it is precisely in megacities that the positions of the left (both Marxists and neoliberals) are strongest.

Small town societies have a completely different mentality. Here, first of all, that corporate environment is formed, in which each person depends on the people around him. Such communities are more cohesive and less affected by external factors. In addition, a person living in a small city is more inclined to adhere to moral principles, traditions and the order accepted by society, since the public opinion of a small urban community plays a much larger role in the life of an individual than in a megacity.

The same plays an even stronger role in the village.

Life in them is inherently much more pious than in a big city, and in the city in general. And although it is quite possible to maintain its traditions and way of life in it - Old Believers and Jews are examples of this - in the village this is what Old Believers and Jews (more precisely, in the case of townships, such a hybrid between city and village) also serve as an eloquent example much simpler and more reliable. The trend of modernity is mass urbanization, and moving people to cities behind great opportunities is understandable, especially in Russia, but, on the other hand, it is important for the right not to forget about the other side of this process, contributing to one degree or another to deurbanization of the country.

It is clear that cities as such, and large cities in particular, will not go anywhere - and they are needed. But the question is to preserve the conservative basis of the country, which, among other things, can and will "feed" large cities. The only question is how much, how it will affect its very safety, and this issue needs to be solved in the key of full-fledged support for the development of villages and small towns.

But how to do all this? Unless many people now consider the village, by and large, has not completely outgrown its age, will not small towns be methodically erased over time? Fortunately, modern technology gives a negative answer to this question. Modern technologies, cottages and townhouses, remote work at home - all this makes it possible to have a living and urban comfort even living in rural areas, and even more so in small towns. The issue of leisure can be solved as well as high-speed trains of the Peregrine Falcon, and, strictly speaking, by the development of the smallest cities and villages, which, to some extent, will appear as the country's overall economic development proceeds. The question largely remains with psychology, and it is precisely this problem that is right and has to be solved, including having formed a new image of small towns and villages, which, of course, is unthinkable without their qualitative transformation and improvement of the economic situation. It may be worthwhile to introduce even the concept of “non-village” as a progressive and blissful change of the old institution.

The country's economic decentralization will also play its role (especially in the peregrine context), when different cities, not just one or two, will play the role of an attractive magnet, like Germany, where Hanover, Frankfurt, and Munich play a strong role where in the capital-Berlin only 4% of the population lives.

But one thing must be done exactly - the current trend of urbanization should be overcome.

Nikita Novsky
Daniil Svydinsky

Nikita Novsky

Vespa on social networks

Materials that you will not find on the site

G|translate Your license is inactive or expired, please subscribe again!