Comment 71214

By RB (registered) | Posted November 11, 2011 at 11:27:36

I'm sure some one far smarter than me can explain this, but I was wondering about point 4.

"The evidence bears this out: by a variety of measures, the innovation rate is higher in cities that are larger and denser and bring a variety of people into contact."

I assume that this means that the more diverse & larger a population is, the more innovative it will be?

I think of countries that have homogeneous & large city populations, such as South Korea, Japan, China and others and look at their levels of innovation, and I'd say they are pretty high. Or am I wrong?

I always find this whole "people type A is not smart enough to carry on without the inclusion of people type B & C thrown into the mix" seems a little broad in it's application.

Japan has seemed to be a leader in innovation, yet their immigration levels have been quite low for decades, so how is this explained? As well as other countries with low levels of immigration? Maybe they are not as innovative as I think they are. Maybe I'm mistaking innovation for weird porn and indoor ski hills?

But then there is the obvious fact that differing ideas contribute greatly to innovation and development, which I don't think anyone can argue. So is it a necessity? Or just helpful?

Just seems strange to me... perhaps these are just outliers, but if that's the case, then how many outliers will it take until they are not outliers anymore, but just part of the normal distribution.

Perhaps I'm over-thinking this, as my work slows down mid-month!

PS: Hope the Town Halls meeting went well the other night!

PSS: I agree with TnT; I am somewhat skeptical about other cities ideas being successfully transplanted to Hamilton, as each city is different... but then again, you never know until you try!

Comment edited by RB on 2011-11-11 11:28:29

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools