Skip to main content

City State

Estonia is often described as a "City State". It is not really true, after all -territorially- the country is quite large, about the size of Belgium or Denmark. Yet given that half of the 1.3 million population lives in Harju County- the area in and around the capital, Tallinn- it is clear that the country is quite urban and quite concentrated. Yet, away from Tallinn, there are only four cities over 70,000 people, so the rest is small towns, villages, farms and forests.

Yet what we mean by a City is now being challenged by the staggering urbanisation taking place in China. There is now a proposal to link four or five already quite large cities around the Pearl River delta in Guangdong Province into a huge "mega-city" of nearly 50 million people. As in so many things, China is emerging as a pioneer. Urbanisation has been identified as something that provides net benefits to city dwellers, yet I for one can help feeling a little nervous about what this headlong dash towards the mega-cities of the future might mean. There are over 170 cities in China that are larger than the entire population of Estonia. Yet I ask myself, "what happens if something breaks down?". We know that Cities provide greater social and technological opportunities compared to rural dwellers, and they tend to be much richer too. Yet Cities are also rather fragile constructs of our civilisation. Cities are a product of the surplus of food that the countryside can create. Concentrating so many people into a relatively small space, also maximises the opportunities for human parasites: including diseases. While it has been nearly a century since the last pandemic, the fact is that periodic plagues are something that Humans must expect, and Cities are ideal transmission grounds for these.

There are further challenges- only yesterday, there was the news that the magma chamber underneath the Yellowstone super-volcano has been quite active. An eruption here would have planet wide consequences, while some cities, such as Istanbul and Tokyo are also sitting on highly active fault lines: both are overdue major earthquakes. So, although cities do bring benefits, they also carry risks- and there seems to be little awareness or preparation for dealing with these risks.

So, Estonia benefits from the relative urbanisation of its population, but it also benefits from the fact that almost all of the urban inhabitants have roots in the countryside. Most have summer homes in the country, where they grow fruit or vegetables, or keep beehives. Most Estonians eat organic, because they know of no other kind of food. The food processing that mega-cities rely on to feed themselves is nearly unknown here. Even at the airport food is freshly cooked from unfrozen and unprocessed ingredients

In the world of the mega-city, the kind of rural life that remains open to Estonians is becoming rarer- indeed it might almost be regarded as a luxury to have so much space. The roads are quiet, the forests silent and yet teeming with wildlife. As I walk through the mediaeval city walls and into the centre of Tallinn I breath the clean sea air- and I am very thankful for it.

Comments

Edis said…
Little noted fact. Estonia is twice as big as Israel.

Estonia 45,228 km2
Israel 20,700 km2 (almost exactly the same size as Wales)

That though always sobers me when thinking about Israel security issues....

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...