Here are my answers to the questions I got about this video: 1. One hundred years ago, what fraction of the world’s population lived in cities? *Only two out of ten people lived in a city.* 2. What led to the development of the first permanent towns and cities? *When humans learned farming techniques like irrigation and soil tilling, they could rely on a steady and long-term supply of food. This allowed humans to make permanent towns and cities.* 3. Where is most of the world’s future population growth expected to happen? *Most of the future population growth is expected to happen in the urban areas of the world’s poorest countries.* 4. List three ways the video says that cities need to change, in order to accommodate future population growth. -*The world will need to seek ways to provide adequate food, sanitation, and education for all people.* -*Growth will need to happen in a way that does not damage the land.* -*Power will need to come from multiple sources of renewable energy.*
As someone from an urban area of some of the world's poorest countries, I can attest, my city (which was named once here) is expanding f*cking rapidly. The prices of flats have gone up 1.5 times in the last two years in my neighborhood, inflation accounted.
In summary : Settlements were possible due to agricultural developments. This went further to produce surplus. This surplus could be traded with people who could not produce food and instead produced goods other than food.This trade improved in only some parts of the world and were turned to cities where people came to settle and seek jobs. This went on till Industrial revolution. And now, it will go on developing
Quite a shallow overview. By avoiding all controversial points about the history of urbanization, this becomes void of meaning. I also got the sense of a linear progression towards its current state, but it was not a smooth line of progression. Many civilizations had interesting approaches to large settlements.
+eluxsus0195684 well, take a simple stuff from the conclusion part of the video, it's so generic that it's most likely true. it's like reading one's horoscop. if they don't provide specifics, they're just stating platitudes. but it's not necessarily the way things will move forward. i.e. this idea that we'll grow foods in pots in our homes is laughable when you think of the total needs of a family during a year and the lack of spacing in current multi-story building (even in developed countries). of all the probable solutions, they pick 2 and one of them doesn't even start to address the issue. and it also doesn't cover other controversial topics, for example, humans are already producing enough food to feed 10 billion people, but a lot of it is wasted... and there's the history of urbanisation which I think I covered well with my initial comment, it wasn't a linear progression at all. it's also not a good segue way into the conclusion of the video, it's not even a logical argument for the necessity of these changes (it's actually irrelevant, we have different issues today from 300 years ago or more). it makes little sense considering the ending.
g0lanu I see your point, but this video is really just a broad summary of a possible outcome. It's four minutes long, not an hour long documentary. Details aside, I don't find the probability impossible, but there would need to be a drastic decrease in population and usage of resources.
+eluxsus0195684 See?! now this is what got me worried about the video: rash conclusions. If you only have 4 minutes at your disposal than why waste them with parts that don't connect with each other? Also, by not making a strong case for the issues, how do you even know your conclusions are true?? (and they aren't)... It also gives room for dangerous assumptions, such as "the population would need to decrease to ..." - which are also not true, that is some fear mongering coined 200years ago that was never factually true, nor did it meet the burden of proof or the test of time. The population kept increasing and we kept finding new ways to deal with the situation. Whatever the problem is, a population decrease would either imply a calamity of catastrophic proportions or genocid - so this can't be it's solution. Any reasonable solution needs to consider an ever increase of the population (that will cap out at some point if we do manage to increase income per capita, education and health) and the solution to those actual problems that such a trend implies.... and they're all in our grasp, if we're honest.
2. Where will most of the population growth occur in the coming years? Most of the growth will occur in the urban areas of the world’s poorest countries 3. How will cities need to change to accommodate this growth? First the world will need to seek ways to provide adequate food sanitation and education for all people second, growth will need to happen in a way that does not damage the land that provides us with the goods and services that support the human population thank me later if you have questions like this
I am a teacher with years of experience with children of different abilities and this tempo of explanation is suited for children that are intellectually impaired or very young. I will show it in class tomorrow and ask them what they think of it (age ranges 12-16), but I'm almost certain I already know the answer.
City states like Singapore aren't self-sustaining genius, Singapore is the executive of a company and require a huge network underneath it to flow in capital or physical goods like food! London flourishes because the capital of the rest of the UK flows disproportionately into London, same goes for Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin etc etc. You think every rural village can become a city state? Every farmer as affluent as urban bankers? Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, if everybody becomes a city state then competition would drive them all tribal, with no one actually producing the basic raw goods that people at the top take for granted!
city states will make the raw goods and much better than villages. On say a modern farm, the main job of a farmer is to fix machinery and have a good understanding of plants. Now lets say we have a guy with a Bachelors degree a lab and a drone which goes out and gets samples. That is a far better way of knowing what to do than going out with the 4 wheeler and taking notes on what plants look like in different parts of the field. So know we have a man who can care for the well being of 1000x as many acres of plants as before and he must choose where to live. He will want to live in the city were he can buy what he needs and go to movies and do all the other things people do in cities and all this comes at the small cost of a bit more energy in a tiny drone. Technology is allowing people to live were they want(usually the city) more and more with every innovation.(no matter how they help the economy, banker or farmer or steel worker)
kkknotcool Do you... know how food is harvested and transported across the world? 1 - Certain foods require certain climates. People today take food from all across the globe as granted, ignoring the huge amount of logistics and manpower required to get that one flipping mango or coffee to in front of your face in fresh condition. 2 - If your solution is to "use technology" as the deus ex machina of everything, then greenhouses still require raw material and energy to construct and maintain environments not of the local climate! Creating something that isn't there doesn't come for free! 3 - Do you think entire hectares of farmland will be picked clean by a tiny drone? Do you know how many flipping people are on the planet and how fast we're reproducing? You're underestimating stuff *a bit* aren't you? Lastly, your lovely technology is funded by and depends on, hello, capitalism! In an utopian world we'd all adopt the newest tech and spread it around the globe, but patents and conglomerate monopoly, as seen in the pharmaceutical industry, don't work on our altruistic ideals do they? Buddy tech doesn't solve everything, and in certain cases, leads to even more control, as opposed to freedom.
Da ve To your first statement. Yes, different foods are grown in different climates but I can never eat a pineapple again and be fine for the rest of my life in turns of diet. Most people can grow everything they need in the climate they live in. To your second statement. yes things cost money and no, not every problem is solved by technology. If somewhere the food was not plentiful enough to make it economically then people would just move to where food is or that city would buy food from another city to keep the valuable population. To your third statement, NO I do not think the flying drones will harvest crops, but people don't harvest staple crops like corn anymore ether. The combines do almost all the work with human supervising.(A farmers job is mostly mechanic nowadays, believe me I live in the country) You should really make a million dollars then complain about capitalism. Almost every American can make a million dollars if they want and you will learn a lot about how markets work if you try.
kkknotcool You know, we still live in the age of scarcity, a.k.a. stuff don't randomly generate out of nothing ad infinitum. that goes for physical goods like food and raw material, and that goes for economic concepts like money. By the laws of socioeconomics if everybody's a millionaire, NOBODY IS, inflation? So as one accumulates disproportionate amount of wealth, others will invariably suffer for it. If it's post-scarcity then it's another matter entirely, but have you invented molecular reorganisers yet? In the pursuit of wealth, education is key, yet if all schools are prestigious, no one is! In the accumulation of wealth, if you're paid a millionaire's salary, can all your workers get the same? Again, bit naive about socioeconomics? Reagan and Thatcher's laissez-faire attitudes are as old as civilisation itself, and they have been debunked plenty of times. So why does it persist? *Because you are a lottery-buyer, so claims everybody have equal chances, but there will invariably be just a few winners, and if all receive equal shares of the jackpot, then there are no winners are there?* Perhaps you should study economics 101 before you condescendingly ask others to do the same...
1. What is the importance of improving farming techniques to the development of cities? 2. How does the production of goods contribute to the growth of cities? 3. What are some of the opportunities and challenges that cities will face as the population increases? Help!?!!!
A lot of people don't have that attention span, I actually prefer these videos, they are short and informative, this doesn't mean it's meant for kids. If you want lectures subscribe to TEDtalks.
I do agree that cities will develop like this. Not denying that Although if world population does top at just 10 billion we could(and probably still will to some extent) live like we are now, with plenty of individual family homes. The only thing we 'need' to change is long-term energy solutions and vertical farming techniques. Outside of that, we're kind of covered - there's lots of space and as communication and transportation improve the need to live in a closely populated and dense space just isn't needed. Factories require fewer people to run and manage them as automation is constantly improving, software engineers, IT jobs and even accountants can work from home if they have a company laptop and good internet. With how things are going, urbanization is actually becoming less required, one day we may even see it go backwards if we can improve transportation enough.
1. they learned how to make animals have kids so thats how cities were made 2. everyone didn't have to farm but they had to keep going to the cities which made it lead to modern cities. 3. The future is we need to take care of everyone. The future is diverse 4. They need to provide food for everyone, sanitation, and education 5. buildings 6. gardens will be on rooftops, instead of single homes it will be vertical. 7. it will make a better
Ok, so TedEd kinda is the kids channel. I hadn't fully realized that before. I'll keep that in mind when clicking on TedEd vids in the future. Thanks. :)
Great video ... I will add a piece of information that the first city in the world is Jericho in Palestine The correct name is Arieha That is the city of the moon .. Jericho dates back to the Stone Age is 10-11 thousand years ago .. and there are now to where the buildings date back to 9000 year. Jericho is also the lower region of the world
What we need right now is efficient and adaptable cities, next we need safe and eco friendly cars, space mining, ecological science advancements, and big progress on space travel to build an interstellar civilization
We're far from building in the deep ocean, but even now some hotels have underwater rooms (Utter Inn, Jules' Undersea Lodge). An underwater city will probably start at the water's edge or surface, then slowly spread as technology allows further construction. As for floating cities... don't hold your breath. Until relatively free levitation technology comes along, it will always be easier to build on the ground.
+Workdove An economic collapse of the dollar will force corporations to create digital currency to maintain jobs and civil unrest. It could work splendidly, but then we'd all be slaves to their whims (as if we already aren't) working in a borderline feudal system with the likes of McDonalds ruling over urban fiefdoms. If people reject it, well, it's nice knowing ya. Either way, it's looking pretty grim.
As someone from an urban area of some of the world's poorest countries, I can attest, my city (which was named once here) is expanding f*cking rapidly. The prices of flats have gone up 1.5 times in the last two years, inflation accounted.
Indeed the world has urbanized to a greater degree with such exponentially growing in the past few centuries. We should also note that it wasn't just people flocking to cities but also how major cities continued forming everywhere. The growth of suburban areas can be argued as urbanization in many ways since they expanded the borders of cities yet such can also be argued as reducing urbanization since people did such to escape the center of cities and even fled for little urbanized areas. I see the populations of regions more centralizing but what the new geographic models of living and working spaces will be along with how people will live is purely speculation and such might be today an unfathomable model!
We've been running the same society for centuries with expectations of massive change like a messiah of city construction. The truth is we rely on massive corporations and behave as animals when in the face of organized corruption. The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again with the expectation of different results. We can conclude that society is simply insane, if we want to change the world we must change our corporations which are entities, not people ...
I agree. In America the government pays subsidies to farmers for them to not plant crops to keep market prices high. Farmers also throw away crops with minor imperfections. If we could bring about a world peace then that would allow the economies of minor countries to stabilize and grow and have greater access to world trade.
Oh so you'd rather watch the woman's face talking to the camera? These images are helpful and interesting. They make people understand and associate them with what she's saying.
If you say that most of this tremendous growth will happen in urban areas of the most poorest countries, then I would like to believe that most of the solutions or rather changes in the way things are done won't happen in the 'poor' countries. These changes that you state fit to the developed countries. Developing countries hence need to create their own solution to accommodate this forthcoming growth. That's challenge to people who live in the developing nations me included.
I really don't know why this vertical farming idea is so popular. Ultimately, area is a restriction for farming not because of the amount of space for plants to grow but because of the amount of sunlight an area gets. Cities are tiny compared to the area needed to support them so building vertical farms in those cities might or might not be financially viable but ultimately, it's just not a solution to anything.
Reading is great, but watching videos is a far more efficient and effective way to learn about topics like this. Education needs to be tailored more around the needs of students and what will be optimal for productive learning instead of blindly following tradition, i.e., using text to communicate all information.
We, as a responsible citizen, need to use whatever we have more efficiently & sustainably to reduce the human footprint on our nature so that more people can be accommodated in the urban areas.
but 10.000 years ago, our ancestors began to learn the secrets of selective breeding and early agricultural techniques for the first time, people could raise food rather than search for it, and this led to the development of semi-chronic backaches and other annoying illnesses.
There have been pilot projects in... I think it was Atlanta and/or San Francisco, with skyscraper(s) fitted with solar panels, wind turbines, small-scale farms for the inhabitants etc etc. It wasn't an absolute solution, they didn't get completely self-sufficient, but it shows how much can be done with small means, if you really want to.
+The Stranger no it is not, considering metropolitan area,which depends on labor market area ,Shanghai is the 3rd on the list of most populated cities nearly double than that of kolkata. kolkata's surface area is huge and increased in an alarming rate over the past couple of years. I was born and brought up in one of the cities and I lived in the other one for a subsequent amount of time to know the city,so trust me ,I know what I am talking about.
1. What kinds of opportunities are people hoping to find when they move to a city? 2. What are the pros and cons of living in urban areas? 3. What do you think motivates people to leave rural places for urban environments? 4. After watching the videos, what are some things people give up in order to live in densely populated areas (big cities)? will apple pay $10 if someone gives me answers frfr struggling.
I've nothing against cartoons, but like rogueqd I would like more in-depth lectures. Lately, Ted has made videos about the kind of stuff you learn in primary school. The content, along with the slow pace and harmless looking cartoons, seems to be for kids ages 12-16.
did anyone else's teacher bring them here
Simply DGD mhm
Yessir
yes im doing mine today
yep ;-;
here xD
I should be studying right now
Me, too.😏
same here m8
+Synochra same...
+Synochra we ARE stdying
1503nemanja just not what we should
Here are my answers to the questions I got about this video:
1. One hundred years ago, what fraction of the world’s population lived in cities?
*Only two out of ten people lived in a city.*
2. What led to the development of the first permanent towns and cities?
*When humans learned farming techniques like irrigation and soil tilling, they could rely on a steady and long-term supply of food. This allowed humans to make permanent towns and cities.*
3. Where is most of the world’s future population growth expected to happen?
*Most of the future population growth is expected to happen in the urban areas of the world’s poorest countries.*
4. List three ways the video says that cities need to change, in order to accommodate future population growth.
-*The world will need to seek ways to provide adequate food, sanitation, and education for all people.*
-*Growth will need to happen in a way that does not damage the land.*
-*Power will need to come from multiple sources of renewable energy.*
Thx , u deserve more likes
As someone from an urban area of some of the world's poorest countries, I can attest, my city (which was named once here) is expanding f*cking rapidly. The prices of flats have gone up 1.5 times in the last two years in my neighborhood, inflation accounted.
ily so much
@@kakalimukherjee3297 inflations hitting worse now but i hope youre doing fine.
ty
In summary : Settlements were possible due to agricultural developments. This went further to produce surplus. This surplus could be traded with people who could not produce food and instead produced goods other than food.This trade improved in only some parts of the world and were turned to cities where people came to settle and seek jobs. This went on till Industrial revolution. And now, it will go on developing
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you I needed this!
thank you so much!!!
Vishita THX NOW I DONT HAVE TO WATCH THAT VID
Lets go
Let’s be honest , our geography teacher brought us here ! Like me :V
Yep
yep me to
Me to, greetings from Germany
yess
YUP
It's sad we make more food than we need but there are still ppl in need of food and water
Blame inefficiency, dude. That's what's responsible for much of the suffering in the world.
Feynstein 100 your 4 years late.. and I guess im 2 yrs late too :b
More people than we need more like
It’s also overpopulation
@@shayseahawkraptorfanTrue 😢
I learned more in these 4 min than the whole day at school.
8 years ago you were learning this know i am for exams how's life you've probably got a job too
lmao
POV: You're here because your teacher made you watch this
yep-
It was a Geography lesson ._.
Hi Keir I was brought here as well lol
@@Jorell8 *i didnt expect anybody i knew to find this*
I'm the teacher 😂😁
Plot twist: I'm actually the teacher lol
humans: we need something for population control
coronavirus: why u running away tho!!
Hahaha
🤣🤣🤣
Lol
we dont lmao, 10 billion is fine
WHY- ARE YOU RUNNING?!
This is like when 100 years ago people imagined how the future would be
NewZero hope this statement doesn’t remain constant
Exactly!!!!
well these year werent great
Please change the name of the video to Urbanization and the *wishful* future of cities.
Myrissa Neufeld and change it to “urbanisation”
Have you seen the movie inception?
"Increasing connected and global world" - They literally chopped New Zealand off of the map, how is that connected?
Whitby Waves calm down, breath in and out.
Quite a shallow overview. By avoiding all controversial points about the history of urbanization, this becomes void of meaning. I also got the sense of a linear progression towards its current state, but it was not a smooth line of progression. Many civilizations had interesting approaches to large settlements.
+g0lanu Can you provide examples?
+eluxsus0195684
well, take a simple stuff from the conclusion part of the video, it's so generic that it's most likely true. it's like reading one's horoscop. if they don't provide specifics, they're just stating platitudes. but it's not necessarily the way things will move forward. i.e. this idea that we'll grow foods in pots in our homes is laughable when you think of the total needs of a family during a year and the lack of spacing in current multi-story building (even in developed countries). of all the probable solutions, they pick 2 and one of them doesn't even start to address the issue. and it also doesn't cover other controversial topics, for example, humans are already producing enough food to feed 10 billion people, but a lot of it is wasted...
and there's the history of urbanisation which I think I covered well with my initial comment, it wasn't a linear progression at all. it's also not a good segue way into the conclusion of the video, it's not even a logical argument for the necessity of these changes (it's actually irrelevant, we have different issues today from 300 years ago or more). it makes little sense considering the ending.
g0lanu I see your point, but this video is really just a broad summary of a possible outcome. It's four minutes long, not an hour long documentary. Details aside, I don't find the probability impossible, but there would need to be a drastic decrease in population and usage of resources.
+eluxsus0195684
See?! now this is what got me worried about the video: rash conclusions.
If you only have 4 minutes at your disposal than why waste them with parts that don't connect with each other? Also, by not making a strong case for the issues, how do you even know your conclusions are true?? (and they aren't)... It also gives room for dangerous assumptions, such as "the population would need to decrease to ..." - which are also not true, that is some fear mongering coined 200years ago that was never factually true, nor did it meet the burden of proof or the test of time. The population kept increasing and we kept finding new ways to deal with the situation.
Whatever the problem is, a population decrease would either imply a calamity of catastrophic proportions or genocid - so this can't be it's solution. Any reasonable solution needs to consider an ever increase of the population (that will cap out at some point if we do manage to increase income per capita, education and health) and the solution to those actual problems that such a trend implies.... and they're all in our grasp, if we're honest.
Empires come and fall.
Only libtards assume everything will be perfect by creating state dictatorships.
Lol who else is here during COVID and some of these comments are from 6 years ago and they didn’t even know what COVID is😂
Are you having a stroke
2. Where will most of the population growth occur in the coming years?
Most of the growth will occur in the urban areas of the world’s poorest countries
3. How will cities need to change to accommodate this growth?
First the world will need to seek ways to provide adequate food sanitation and education for all people second, growth will need to happen in a way that does not damage the land that provides us with the goods and services that support the human population
thank me later if you have questions like this
I am a teacher with years of experience with children of different abilities and this tempo of explanation is suited for children that are intellectually impaired or very young. I will show it in class tomorrow and ask them what they think of it (age ranges 12-16), but I'm almost certain I already know the answer.
Full of respect for people developing urbanisation... Thanks for reporting
CLEAN ENERGY IS THE START TO STOP HELP POOR COUNTRIES AND STOPS GLOBAL WARMING AND NOT HURTING THE EARTH
cakeman son Global warming is natural. I'm sorry if you think otherwise.
Blockman Zan oh well thx for telling me
no, the climate was supposed to be cooling. instead it's warming 170x faster than natural climate change
I’m supposed to be taking notes but instead I’m focusing on the hungry jacks as that popped up
Humanity has come far from it's beggining, I hope I still live to see the future of what the next generation might bring us
It’s amazing how much we have achieved.
Yes, we might have a utopian city in the future!🚝
@@bennymora3086with all the wealth we have exploited we better do, especially for our future generations!
0:28 ya’ll might wanna play respect for my main man
RIP
f
F
F
F
My teacher gave me this link.But main thing's,you guys sure explain well.Deserved a sub and like
Great expliaination of urbanization in a short period of time.
We need do somethink for earth faaast we need to speak about what happen now in this world! We need to do somethink speak with presidents!
Judging by this video in the future will once flourishing city-states, as the city-state of Singapore.I like this.
City states like Singapore aren't self-sustaining genius, Singapore is the executive of a company and require a huge network underneath it to flow in capital or physical goods like food! London flourishes because the capital of the rest of the UK flows disproportionately into London, same goes for Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul, Berlin etc etc. You think every rural village can become a city state? Every farmer as affluent as urban bankers? Capitalism is by definition a pyramid, if everybody becomes a city state then competition would drive them all tribal, with no one actually producing the basic raw goods that people at the top take for granted!
city states will make the raw goods and much better than villages. On say a modern farm, the main job of a farmer is to fix machinery and have a good understanding of plants. Now lets say we have a guy with a Bachelors degree a lab and a drone which goes out and gets samples. That is a far better way of knowing what to do than going out with the 4 wheeler and taking notes on what plants look like in different parts of the field. So know we have a man who can care for the well being of 1000x as many acres of plants as before and he must choose where to live. He will want to live in the city were he can buy what he needs and go to movies and do all the other things people do in cities and all this comes at the small cost of a bit more energy in a tiny drone. Technology is allowing people to live were they want(usually the city) more and more with every innovation.(no matter how they help the economy, banker or farmer or steel worker)
kkknotcool
Do you... know how food is harvested and transported across the world?
1 - Certain foods require certain climates. People today take food from all across the globe as granted, ignoring the huge amount of logistics and manpower required to get that one flipping mango or coffee to in front of your face in fresh condition.
2 - If your solution is to "use technology" as the deus ex machina of everything, then greenhouses still require raw material and energy to construct and maintain environments not of the local climate! Creating something that isn't there doesn't come for free!
3 - Do you think entire hectares of farmland will be picked clean by a tiny drone? Do you know how many flipping people are on the planet and how fast we're reproducing? You're underestimating stuff *a bit* aren't you?
Lastly, your lovely technology is funded by and depends on, hello, capitalism! In an utopian world we'd all adopt the newest tech and spread it around the globe, but patents and conglomerate monopoly, as seen in the pharmaceutical industry, don't work on our altruistic ideals do they?
Buddy tech doesn't solve everything, and in certain cases, leads to even more control, as opposed to freedom.
Da ve To your first statement. Yes, different foods are grown in different climates but I can never eat a pineapple again and be fine for the rest of my life in turns of diet. Most people can grow everything they need in the climate they live in.
To your second statement. yes things cost money and no, not every problem is solved by technology. If somewhere the food was not plentiful enough to make it economically then people would just move to where food is or that city would buy food from another city to keep the valuable population.
To your third statement, NO I do not think the flying drones will harvest crops, but people don't harvest staple crops like corn anymore ether. The combines do almost all the work with human supervising.(A farmers job is mostly mechanic nowadays, believe me I live in the country)
You should really make a million dollars then complain about capitalism. Almost every American can make a million dollars if they want and you will learn a lot about how markets work if you try.
kkknotcool
You know, we still live in the age of scarcity, a.k.a. stuff don't randomly generate out of nothing ad infinitum. that goes for physical goods like food and raw material, and that goes for economic concepts like money.
By the laws of socioeconomics if everybody's a millionaire, NOBODY IS, inflation?
So as one accumulates disproportionate amount of wealth, others will invariably suffer for it. If it's post-scarcity then it's another matter entirely, but have you invented molecular reorganisers yet?
In the pursuit of wealth, education is key, yet if all schools are prestigious, no one is!
In the accumulation of wealth, if you're paid a millionaire's salary, can all your workers get the same?
Again, bit naive about socioeconomics?
Reagan and Thatcher's laissez-faire attitudes are as old as civilisation itself, and they have been debunked plenty of times.
So why does it persist?
*Because you are a lottery-buyer, so claims everybody have equal chances, but there will invariably be just a few winners, and if all receive equal shares of the jackpot, then there are no winners are there?*
Perhaps you should study economics 101 before you condescendingly ask others to do the same...
1. What is the importance of improving farming techniques to the development of cities?
2. How does the production of goods contribute to the growth of cities?
3. What are some of the opportunities and challenges that cities will face as the population increases?
Help!?!!!
no YOU help me 😰😟
As we progress in Urbanization , we should always memorize the first recorded city of URUK was first settled in around 4500 BCE in Mesopotamia .
Yeah, and forgetting about their behavior that forgetiing trees
@@bonvg6037 What is the meaning
These ted-ed videos are just so interesting
I love TED Ed's animation videos!
The view only gets better the closer to the cliff you get.
Jacque Fresco's ideas are being picked up more and more. Great animation
A lot of people don't have that attention span, I actually prefer these videos, they are short and informative, this doesn't mean it's meant for kids. If you want lectures subscribe to TEDtalks.
this is one of the best animations :) good job
The watercolor illustrations are lovely!
That sky garden looks pretty fucking cool
CoRoNA
Bruh don't swear
@@haydenharding-hubbard8083 fu
Yep another video that my geography teacher wants me to watch.
0:10 did not realize a lot of people lived in the Gulf of Alaska.
tHIS SAVED MY LIFE WHEN IT CAME TO A GEOGRAPHY TEST, THANK YOU
Plot twist: You are a geography teacher looking for informational videos
My teacher always shows us vids from this channel
*Upload your homework at T-SIS tonight!*
I do agree that cities will develop like this. Not denying that
Although if world population does top at just 10 billion we could(and probably still will to some extent) live like we are now, with plenty of individual family homes. The only thing we 'need' to change is long-term energy solutions and vertical farming techniques. Outside of that, we're kind of covered - there's lots of space and as communication and transportation improve the need to live in a closely populated and dense space just isn't needed.
Factories require fewer people to run and manage them as automation is constantly improving, software engineers, IT jobs and even accountants can work from home if they have a company laptop and good internet.
With how things are going, urbanization is actually becoming less required, one day we may even see it go backwards if we can improve transportation enough.
I bet they will watch this 100 years from now and laugh laugh or weep at it's disparity.
CoRoNa
1. they learned how to make animals have kids so thats how cities were made
2. everyone didn't have to farm but they had to keep going to the cities which made it lead to modern cities.
3. The future is we need to take care of everyone. The future is diverse
4. They need to provide food for everyone, sanitation, and education
5. buildings
6. gardens will be on rooftops, instead of single homes it will be vertical.
7. it will make a better
omg thanks I didn't feel like watching the video
My 8th grade social studies teacher brought me here, anyone else?
Ok, so TedEd kinda is the kids channel. I hadn't fully realized that before. I'll keep that in mind when clicking on TedEd vids in the future. Thanks. :)
future looks nice with technology
so much info to try to squeeze in 4 minutes. Would love more resources regarding this.
School brought me here
Papyrusans Online school brought me here
School also brought me here and i did not learn a damn thing
im in geography rn
the future has begun... this is insanely cool and scary at the same time
Great video ... I will add a piece of information that the first city in the world is Jericho in Palestine
The correct name is Arieha That is the city of the moon .. Jericho dates back to the Stone Age is 10-11 thousand years ago .. and there are now to where the buildings date back to 9000 year.
Jericho is also the lower region of the world
Dexter Gestern come on don't be rude )':
Dexter Gestern
However .. thank you
this is your opinion
thats the one that the jews conquered
Nerd
What we need right now is efficient and adaptable cities, next we need safe and eco friendly cars, space mining, ecological science advancements, and big progress on space travel to build an interstellar civilization
Agriculture was the beginning of the end
We're far from building in the deep ocean, but even now some hotels have underwater rooms (Utter Inn, Jules' Undersea Lodge). An underwater city will probably start at the water's edge or surface, then slowly spread as technology allows further construction.
As for floating cities... don't hold your breath. Until relatively free levitation technology comes along, it will always be easier to build on the ground.
What a knowledgeable video! Thank you for making this video for us.
wow my teacher gonna teach me now but online and you the first teacher to teach me
Unless the economy collapses and we get another dark age.
No even with the economy collapse, another dark age is now impossible. Although a extinction level event could do it.
+Workdove An economic collapse of the dollar will force corporations to create digital currency to maintain jobs and civil unrest. It could work splendidly, but then we'd all be slaves to their whims (as if we already aren't) working in a borderline feudal system with the likes of McDonalds ruling over urban fiefdoms. If people reject it, well, it's nice knowing ya. Either way, it's looking pretty grim.
Me: Please stop being so negative
Also me: Nah y’all gonna died, so why even try
@Workdove I think we have a catalyst for that now, don't you...
As someone from an urban area of some of the world's poorest countries, I can attest, my city (which was named once here) is expanding f*cking rapidly. The prices of flats have gone up 1.5 times in the last two years, inflation accounted.
Indeed the world has urbanized to a greater degree with such exponentially growing in the past few centuries. We should also note that it wasn't just people flocking to cities but also how major cities continued forming everywhere. The growth of suburban areas can be argued as urbanization in many ways since they expanded the borders of cities yet such can also be argued as reducing urbanization since people did such to escape the center of cities and even fled for little urbanized areas. I see the populations of regions more centralizing but what the new geographic models of living and working spaces will be along with how people will live is purely speculation and such might be today an unfathomable model!
None of those things NEED to happen, but they all SHOULD happen
That was very helpful!
Thank you.
This vid is still used for hw 10 years later
Real
True
Real!
F in the chat if your living during covid and online school
F
We've been running the same society for centuries with expectations of massive change like a messiah of city construction. The truth is we rely on massive corporations and behave as animals when in the face of organized corruption.
The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again with the expectation of different results.
We can conclude that society is simply insane, if we want to change the world we must change our corporations which are entities, not people ...
this helps me in learning
The concept and energy of the Global Interactive and Futuristic-like Urban City has already been created. We have the platform for real cities.
Thank you great video, sums up so much so simply its great!
I agree. In America the government pays subsidies to farmers for them to not plant crops to keep market prices high. Farmers also throw away crops with minor imperfections. If we could bring about a world peace then that would allow the economies of minor countries to stabilize and grow and have greater access to world trade.
Question : what are the key features as described by her
Hehe doing geography HW wight
@@ayanfaisal2404 Already done
I think the animation matches well with lesson
Love the scenes of Babylon and New York.
Oh so you'd rather watch the woman's face talking to the camera? These images are helpful and interesting. They make people understand and associate them with what she's saying.
POV: you are watching this because this is your homework
😂😂yes bro 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
frfr HAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA
If you say that most of this tremendous growth will happen in urban areas of the most poorest countries, then I would like to believe that most of the solutions or rather changes in the way things are done won't happen in the 'poor' countries. These changes that you state fit to the developed countries. Developing countries hence need to create their own solution to accommodate this forthcoming growth. That's challenge to people who live in the developing nations me included.
My teacher showed me this in class but I want to watch it again
I really don't know why this vertical farming idea is so popular. Ultimately, area is a restriction for farming not because of the amount of space for plants to grow but because of the amount of sunlight an area gets. Cities are tiny compared to the area needed to support them so building vertical farms in those cities might or might not be financially viable but ultimately, it's just not a solution to anything.
Great overview on the history and desirable future of urban spaces.
Reading is great, but watching videos is a far more efficient and effective way to learn about topics like this. Education needs to be tailored more around the needs of students and what will be optimal for productive learning instead of blindly following tradition, i.e., using text to communicate all information.
Anyone else’s teacher making us watch this during covid 19
We, as a responsible citizen, need to use whatever we have more efficiently & sustainably to reduce the human footprint on our nature so that more people can be accommodated in the urban areas.
And along came the internet, providing work from home. So long traffic congestion and cubicle incubators!
Thank you so much, Let's make smart cities
0:29 Rest in pieces my fellow companion
but 10.000 years ago, our ancestors began to learn the secrets of selective breeding and early agricultural techniques
for the first time, people could raise food rather than search for it, and this led to the development of semi-chronic backaches and other annoying illnesses.
0:29 can we get an f in the chat for our fallen soldier
rest in pizza my dear friend
F
Will recommend to my class.
this was not a description of the future of cities
Yes, Yes it was
Nice video, It is really insightful👌👌
POV: you are trying to find the answers in the comments for your homework
I love the animation in this lesson!
Damn my teacher bring this audio for test.
Very cool edutainment video, thanks, Ted-Ed 🙏🏼
I clicked to see predictions, not a history lesson about cities.
There have been pilot projects in... I think it was Atlanta and/or San Francisco, with skyscraper(s) fitted with solar panels, wind turbines, small-scale farms for the inhabitants etc etc. It wasn't an absolute solution, they didn't get completely self-sufficient, but it shows how much can be done with small means, if you really want to.
my teacher made us watch this
Same boi
lol tay it's henry
Same
H Dog
Same >~< and we have questions about it to answer
Excellent video!
i dont understand why she said calcutta? its far from over populated! shanghai and calcutta can never come in one line,while addressing population.
It's density not population
+lisa lavergne either way Calcutta is not over populated nor densely populated, not at All anything like Shanghai
+Arka Biswas yes yes it is
+The Stranger no it is not, considering metropolitan area,which depends on labor market area ,Shanghai is the 3rd on the list of most populated cities nearly double than that of kolkata. kolkata's surface area is huge and increased in an alarming rate over the past couple of years. I was born and brought up in one of the cities and I lived in the other one for a subsequent amount of time to know the city,so trust me ,I know what I am talking about.
Arka Biswas alright and what does 14,112,536 people-metro men
1. What kinds of opportunities are people hoping to find when they move to a city?
2. What are the pros and cons of living in urban areas?
3. What do you think motivates people to leave rural places for urban environments?
4. After watching the videos, what are some things people give up in order to live in densely populated areas (big cities)?
will apple pay $10 if someone gives me answers frfr struggling.
Will you do the payment in Indian rupees?
Well that was the most uninformative TED-Ed video I have ever watched.
I copied the whole thing for an essay.
@@marinamajtanova5717 same)
I've nothing against cartoons, but like rogueqd I would like more in-depth lectures. Lately, Ted has made videos about the kind of stuff you learn in primary school. The content, along with the slow pace and harmless looking cartoons, seems to be for kids ages 12-16.