The rich and famous have traditionally enjoyed a dual mode of living, with a second house in a more rural setting than their urban abode. Recently, however, there is a trend, led by some of the classiest digerati, to move the primary locus of activity to rural settings, transforming farms and bungalows in such places as Telluride, Aspen, and the Caribbean into primary and sometimes sole homes. Because of telecommunications, the rural returnees enjoy a safer, saner, cleaner, and more private lifestyle, while staying very much connected to learning, work, and art.
Mind you, this trend is not limited to a few high-net-worth individuals. The growth of cities like Paris has slowed. And London is shrinking.
Classic economics and the history of human development say that urban settings create jobs and wealth. In newly industrialized nations - perhaps most nations - being rural and being poor are almost synonymous. Country children and parents see opportunity - as well as health, education, and welfare - in cities.
The fact is, jobs and wealth are found in cities. But what is amazing is that proud parents willingly live with dirt, noise, and crime in exchange for the small chance their children might succeed. One of my optimisms about the digital world is that it'll redistribute jobs and wealth, so that the concentration of opportunity need not parallel the concentration of people.
The truth is that in today's digital world, being rural need not necessarily mean being poor. That's because the three most important elements of national development are telecommunications, telecommunications, and telecommunications.
If I were a head of state, I would focus on telemedicine for country hospitals. I would use computers to improve rural schools. And if I owned the telecom infrastructure (which I would), I would use my monopoly to bring broadband to the countryside.
I know I wouldn't be reelected, but the point is still clear: The digital world has no center and therefore no periphery. In fact, the US cellular infrastructure is more marginalizing than that found in Cambodia (where I recently found better connectivity than I do from my AMPS cell phones). This simply says the all-too-obvious - digital isolation is driven by bandwidth, not locations.
In some period of time, I don't care if it is 20 or 40 years, most people will make their living with bits, not atoms. When this happens, the balance of wealth and job opportunity will change in favor of a bucolic lifestyle. The flow of people will be out of, not into, cities. In fact, we may all have to relearn country living.
In the near future, half the world's population will be found in India and China, nations that epitomize the rural paradox. If just a few leaders reexamined their telecommunications agenda for the rural populace, poverty could be redefined. Being rural could become synonymous with being rich - and not just for those who can afford to buy a second house.
MUST READ
Get Vertical
Calling All Cars!
Infighting Out in the Open
Jargon Watch
Real's Deal
... Meanwhile
The Crazy Things Geniuses Buy
Ultima Offline
Hang Time
People
Autonomous Agent
Tired/Wired
High-Speed Habits
Being Rural
CPR for Your IPO
Raw Data
