Reddit reviews Milton's Teeth and Ovid's Umbrella: Curiouser and Curiouser Adventures in History

I'm quoting a reply / post of yours from below because I hate long chains of replies that get buried, and because you seem to be lacking some information (or at least assuming your argument is stronger than it is).

>I think it's fair to say that many people found living in urban areas more attractive at particular times of history

Based on what? The presence of people in cities? By that metric, if 80% of the planet's population currently lives in cities, we freaking love our cities.

>Since the frame of the discussion is 'modernity', I am talking about recent history. If you look back at the formation of most 'modern' cities there was an excitement and exuberance that is not there today

How are you defining / quantifying "excitement and exuberance" in the past versus today such that you can make a statement like this?

>Cities actually, allow for less-manual work and a diversification of workforces; have been linked to a collection and centralisation, through markets of better quality and more reliable supplies of food; Michael Olmet http://www.amazon.com/Miltons-Teeth-Ovids-Umbrella-Adventures/dp/0684801647 actually links cities with better oral care.

You seem to have things a little backward here. Archaeological evidence indicates that specialization, markets, and centralization didn't develop because of cities. Rather, cities appear to have formed as a consequence of increased centralization and hierarchy, and surplus production, which in turn contribute to greater degrees of specialization.

This may sound like a chicken-egg argument, but it's not, really. We see archaeological evidence for the things you're describing as resulting from city formation well before the formation of cities in most of those regions.

Now you can argue about what a city is, but that's an entire body of literature in and of itself.

Hi NP, thanks for the question. I think it's fair to say that many people found living in urban areas more attractive at particular times of history - this wasn't always true. Since the frame of the discussion is 'modernity', I am talking about recent history. If you look back at the formation of most 'modern' cities there was an excitement and exuberance that is not there today - your correct challenge is evidence of this.

I think you might have a slight romantic view of agricultural life, compared to what I have read. Rather than a pastoral 'Eden' it was often a challenging seasonally effected lifestyle of famine and struggle. If you read an early posting I made, this has been linked to the evolution of the human brain - challenges made us smarter.

Cities actually, allow for less-manual work and a diversification of workforces; have been linked to a collection and centralisation, through markets of better quality and more reliable supplies of food; Michael Olmet http://www.amazon.com/Miltons-Teeth-Ovids-Umbrella-Adventures/dp/0684801647 actually links cities with better oral care.

However, you point of view does confirm my hypothesis that we aren't really thinking about our relationships with cities and how they make us feel. Thanks for reading.