The offerings of a developed city is too tempting for non-residents to refuse. More and more people are leaving their abodes in rural establishments to claim the benefits that a city has to offer. However, the subtle, but steady decrease in population of the countryside can give way to an endless catalogue of problems – overpopulation, negatively impacted agriculture, and abandoned settlements. I strongly believe that that this is a negative development if it’s not regulated thoroughly.
While people who reside in rural areas may benefit a lot by moving to cities for better education, health services, and career options, it’s no good if there aren’t any people left in the countryside. All citizens in a country heavily rely on rural people because they’re the pioneers of agriculture. If less people are contributing towards the agricultural produce, there can essentially be a food shortage for the country as the clock moves on. Moreover, only a limited amount of population can be considered ‘healthy’ for any city. For instance, if there is overcrowding, the demand for basic requirements like housing, food, and travel will also increase. Hence, there could be a chance of a housing and living crisis in large cities.
From a personal standpoint, I believe that a regulatory authorities should have a filter system to control the amount of rural people leaving the countryside for good. A balanced measure would be to implement a program to encourage unemployed citizens to adop agriculture in a region if the amount of people leaving ever gets significantly large. Nobody can stop people from making decisions involving how they want to live their lives, but it’s essential to realise that there should be a balance to maintain a healthy landscape.
In conclusion, the perks of a city aren’t comparable with anything else, and everyone should be free to make their choices. However, it’s essential to balance the scales of urban and rural populations, and there exist various ways to achieve that.