by anador » Wed 14 Nov 2012, 20:00:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') think more along the lines of what is the purpose of the "non-rural" place, like so:
A town serves the rural area, a city is served by the rural area.
I think that that distinction may be the case
now but that is not the way the system originally worked, and will work in the future.
You recall that there was a hierarchy of urban places and rural places in all pre-industrial pre-oil cultures going back thousands of years. After a fashion, The rural hamlet (a collection of farmhouses and perhaps a general store, grouped closely) was a more typical situation in pre industrial cultures than the far flung farmhouse.Spread out farmhouses, with the exception of villas which functioned as self-sufficient villages, were a largely American phenomenon, stemming from the availability of homestead land.(the relative stability of the PAX AMERICANA also made this system possible)
hamlets serve as a small scale safety, social net for the farmers, these are served by nearby villages where surrounding hamlets send their produce to be collected for market. larger towns concentrate the food and local handicrafts from the villages, and in turn redistribute these and their own products to the larger city.
Each level provides an expanded market, profit margin, and safety net for the settlements beneath. the city provides regional shipping and import/export opportunities that the smaller settlements cannot match, and in turn serve the lower villages with raw materials that cannot be found locally, sand for glass, copper for bronze, luxury goods, etc.
A pre/post oil society cannot exist without some sort of distributive economy. One can only survive so long in a farmstead before they start requiring support from a society at large. the hamlet-village-town-city system provided defense, resources, knowledge, and social support for tens of thousands of years.
there is no indication that it should not be a model to going forward as well.