A New Concept for the Urban-Rural Relationship

I just read an article titled, "Cities First-Rural Development Later", by Jane Jacobs, that has redefined the relationship between the city and it's rural surroundings.  It is commonly perceived that civilization was made possible by the discovery of agriculture, which allowed mankind the opportunity to establish permanent dwellings.  Before this time, we were hunter gatherers, a migratory species that followed the seasons and the herds.  This article argues that the opposite is indeed the true progression of events; that cities, or at least urban centers introduced a venue for the discovery of agriculture.

I have personally believed that the two grew into existence mutually, and it is rare that I have the pleasure of encountering an idea so clear and obvious that I adopt it as my own.  "Because we are so used to thinking of farming as a rural activity, we are especially apt to overlook the fact that new kinds of farming come out of cities." e.g. electricity, mechanized processes, even the use of metals for ploughs and and reapers.  The main insight that is presented at the beginning of the article is that the greatest agricultural communities exist only near the greatest cities.  The United States, a country renowned for its cities and industrial nature, is referred to as 'the breadbasket of the world.'  What Jacobs sheds light onto is that, "The industrial revolution occurred first in cities and later in agriculture.  Electricity is now as necessary to modern farming and farm life as it is to city work and city life."  Under the premise that agriculture is the heart of civilization Jacobs explains the sequence that would play out if this were the case:  "First, there were rural people that  had no electricity, but in time, they developed it and eventually produced a surplus; then cities were possible."  If you replace agriculture with electricity, the misconception is apparent.

Jacobs argues that it was not agriculture that fueled the development of cities, but rather, trade.  She uses the example of obsidian, a highly values material 9,000 years ago (long before the implementation of metals.  Obsidian was the greatest tool for cutting, and for building tools for hunting.  The value of this material would have initiated trade.  All sorts of material were brought to a central location for trade, including grains, which would have spilled and sprouted.  This would have been observed by the townspeople, thus; Agriculture was a discovery made possible by the city, and not the other way around.