Why are global population differences not sufficient? Is there an a priori reason to expect a different distribution of genetic factors in cities versus rural areas that feed city migrations?
Absolutely. Pick any city of your choice. New York, Los Angeles, London, Joburg, Bangalore, Hong Kong, Lima... Are the ethnic demographics of the city not substantially different from those of its rural surroundings?
> Absolutely. Pick any city of your choice. New York, Los Angeles, London, Joburg, Bangalore, Hong Kong, Lima... Are the ethnic demographics of the city not substantially different from those of its rural surroundings?
Yes, but are they all ethnically skewed in the same way? If the concern is genetic factors, it doesn't really matter if cities have different ethnic demographics than rural areas in all two hundred countries as long as the rural/urban racial skew is different in the different countries.
For example, in the US rural areas may tend to be whiter than urban areas, but in countries that aren't predominantly caucasian, the opposite may be true.
Absolutely, without any doubt in my mind. DC [1] and Baltimore when compared to the rural areas are significantly different ethnic demographics. This might be one of the most dramatic, but I have seen it in nearly every city I have ever visited. LA, Seattle, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, SF, Portland, London, Lisbon, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich, Vienna, Geneva and dozens others that I have traveled to have significantly different demographics in the city than their rural areas surrounding them.
The only places I feel have been homogeneous with their rural areas surrounding them, have been some of nordic places like Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and Tallinn.
Anecdotally it really seems like this should be true.
Cities in mostly ethnically homogeneous states tend to still have things of value that might draw people of diverse ethnic backgrounds. I'm in Nashville Tennessee and there are far more people of Asian or middle Eastern descent here in the city than there are in the surrounding rural areas, due to the universities and the job opportunities which draw people from out of state.
I thought that due to redlining and white flight, the answer is that yes, there are more white people as a percentage of the total in rural areas compared to cities.
Of course. Cities have been transportation hubs for centuries, and have been the arrival destinations for inter-country travel for centuries. Cities are a natural hub for diversity.
But if by “a priori” you mean something innate in humans or mathematical, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find that. Or what that really means in this context.
> But if by “a priori” you mean something innate in humans or mathematical, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find that. Or what that really even means.
A priori = Beforehand, or before analysis performed. Standard phrasing in research, defines reasonable hypotheses to test.
Of course. But everyone has different knowledge of human history so it’s hard to say what counts as a priori for you versus me.
For example, most americans have a-priori knowledge that rural americans are demographically whiter than urban americans, and could hypothesize global trends.
If that counts as an a priori reason - I’ll take it. In summary: “A priori” is ambiguous here / not a very useful modifier afaict.
