Last Name 1
Name
Course
Professor
Date
Are cultures that do not have cities inherently better off?
Introduction
Collingwood argued that scholars can develop history through the use of critical thinking.
This seems to be used by many historians when there is less information to review concerning
particular aspects of history. In this piece of work, I will argue that cultures which do not have
cities are inherently better off.
Through civilization, the biosphere is destroyed dramatically. Through the construction
of large buildings and other significant structures, trees are cut down, and the soil is exhausted
leading to environmental devastation (Derrick). A culture that does not have cities does not need
to cut down trees but instead protects them. This protection would be significant since it is the
source of food for the people. Hunting and gathering, therefore, does not affect the natural
environment adversely.
Additionally, the development of cities has brought about inequalities of wealth among
human beings. It is only the rich who tend to survive in cities because they have all the necessary
resources which can sustain them. The poor are found on the outskirts of the cities or even far
away in rural areas. The relationship between the poor and the rich has become adverse, and
human beings have developed enmity because of this imbalance of wealth. Looking back to
