So continuing our series of lectures on modernism we now turn to architecture and in particular to the work of Frank o Giri now I'm not going to go into his career in detail. It is enough to say that early on. He was like other modernist architects tied to the rectangle the straight line and so on often their buildings would have this basic shape and they would just add bits of decoration like splashes of color or pointless balconies soon enough. Giri wanted to break away from straight lines and grid-like designs. He wanted the freedom to experiment with other shapes curves and unusually angled roofs. What helped him with. This was the computer which allowed him to visualize and experiment with complex shapes and to work on the whole design as one piece without the added decoration being thrown in as an afterthought architecture as art if you like or or sculpture even he himself said that he had struggled with crossing the line between architecture and sculpture now. I want to talk about one building in particular the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which I think you'll agree is a masterpiece so continuing our series of lectures on modernism. We now turn to architecture and in particular to the work of Frank o Giri now. I'm not going to go into his career in detail. It is enough to say that early on. He was like other modernist architects tied to the rectangle. The straight line and so on often their buildings would have this basic shape and they would just add bits of decoration like splashes of color or pointless balconies soon enough. Giri wanted to break away from straight lines and grid-like designs. He wanted the freedom to experiment with other shapes curves and unusually angled roof. What helped him with. This was the computer which allowed him to visualize and experiment with complex shapes and to work on the whole design as one piece without the added decoration being thrown in as an afterthought architecture as art if you like or or sculpture even he himself said that he had struggled with crossing the line between architecture and sculpture now.

I want to talk about one building in particular the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which I think you'll agree is a masterpiece. The general topic of the lecture is modernism and architecture but the speaker focuses on the work of modernist architect. Frank Gehry in particular the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao Geary. Wanted to break away from the usual straight line. Designs of other architects and experiment with other shapes especially curves. He thought of architecture as an art like sculpture and the museum is a brilliant example of his art. Now you might think it's strange that in a lecture on biology. I will be talking a lot about mathematics and if I may digress a bit when I was a student mathematics. The language of clear abstraction had nothing to do with life sciences like biology the sphere of messy organic forms cutting up frogs in the lab and so on in fact. I started doing biology precisely to avoid maths and physics so I've had a lot of catching up to do. We are aware of how the scientists have come to interrelate more and more and not only will mathematics impinge more and more on biology but also. I am told in the 21st century. The driving force behind mathematics will be biology. This is partly because mathematicians are always on the lookout for more areas to conquer but a far greater reason is that the subject has been boiled down to physics and chemistry obvious attractions for mathematicians. A number of mathematical fields can be applied to biology for example not theory is used in the analysis of the tangled strands of DNA and abstract geometry in four or more dimensions is used to tell us about viruses again. Neuroscience appears to be maths friendly and equations can also explain why hallucinogenic drugs cause the users to see spirals so if mathematicians are taking such a keen interest in biology the least we can do is biologists is return the compliment now.

You might think it's strange that in a lecture on biology. I'll be talking a lot about mathematics um if I may digress a bit when I was a student mathematics. The language of clear abstraction had nothing to do with life sciences like biology the sphere of messy organic forms cutting up frogs in the lab and so on and in fact. I started doing biology precisely to avoid mass and physics so I've had a lot of catching up to do. We are all aware of how the scientists have come to interrelate more and more and not only will mathematics impinge more and more on biology but also I am told in the 21st century. The driving force behind mathematics will be biology. This is partly because mathematicians are always on the lookout for more areas to conquer but a far greater reason is that the subject has been boiled down to physics and chemistry obvious attractions for mathematicians. A number of mathematical fields can be applied to biology for example not theory is used in the analysis of the tangled strands of DNA and abstract geometry in four or more dimensions is used to tell us about viruses again. Neuroscience appears to be maths friendly and equations can also explain why hallucinogenic drugs cools the users to see spirals so if mathematicians are taking such a keen interest in biology the least we can do as biologists is return the compliment you the main point of the lecture various scientists can come together to enrich each other in particular here mathematics and biology. The speaker talks first about their personal experience of school and choosing to study biology to avoid doing maths or subjects like it but explains that math has a lot to contribute to biology. The speaker then gives two examples. The first is the use of not theory to analyze DNA. The second is using abstract geometry to study viruses. You lecture see most of what the general public knows about daily life in ancient. Rome comes from art architecture and literature which tell us more about the elites especially um the goings-on of the Empress but how much do we know of the lives of ordinary Romans.

Did they have a voice. A part that is from what we can gather from graffiti. The usual picture is one of time spent at festivals. Earth's and typically the games however so many Romans terrible living conditions poverty debt and the chance of being sold into slavery at any moment that is if they weren't slaves already left no time or energy for such forms of entertainment or for any interest in politics for that matter indeed after the death of all Gustus executive power was taken from the elected assemblies of the Roman people now it was the Empress job to look after the people and its generosity often depended on the mood and behavior of the people on how often and how violently they protested and righted one example would be Claudius ensuring a steady grain supply even in winter after rioters pelted him with stale crusts of bread there is an anecdote about Hadrian while touring the provinces an old lady approached him with a complaint he made excuses and tried to get away she said that if he wouldn't give her a hearing he shouldn't be. Emperor she got her hearing lecture. See most of what the general public knows about daily life in ancient. Rome comes from art architecture and literature which tell us more about the elites especially um the goings-on of the Empress but how much do we know of the lives of ordinary Romans. Did they have a voice. A part that is from what we can gather from graffiti. The usual picture is one of time spent at festivals. Ah and typically the games however so many. Romans terrible living conditions poverty debt and the chance of being sold into slavery at any moment that is if they weren't slaves already left no time or energy for such forms of entertainment or for any interest in politics for that matter indeed after the death of all Gustus executive power was taken from the elected Assemblies of the Roman people now it was the empress job to look after the people and his generosity often depended on the mood and behavior of the people on how often and how violently they protested and righted one example would be.

Claudius ensuring a steady grain supply even in winter after rioters pelted him with stale crusts of bread there is an anecdote about Hadrian while touring the provinces an old lady approached him with a complaint he made excuses and tried to get away. She said that if he wouldn't give her a hearing he shouldn't be. Emperor she got the hearing. The lecture is about daily life in ancient Rome. The speaker says that what we know is mostly about the aristocracy but we know much less about the lives of ordinary people and how much say they had politically and socially most people lived very difficult lives the speaker points out that it was the duty of the Emperor to take care of ordinary people he gives me examples of. Claudius and Hadrian both of whom had to be reminded of their duty you a nexus to Tocqueville as we have noted appears to have had some appeal to both ends of the political spectrum left and right or rather both have found him to be useful for their purposes in certain circumstances his rational acceptance of the new forces of democracy brought about by the American and French Revolutions made him an icon of left-wing liberals however during the Cold War that is from the end of World War two until the collapse of communism he was adopted by some leading thinkers on the right so there are two sides to his political philosophy and the man himself that we need to look at now. I would suggest that the Tocqueville's biography is important here. You must always bear in mind when reading him that he was an aristocrat and one whose family had suffered in the French Revolution. He wasn't your typical aristocrat because his politics differed from others of his family and social rank he abandoned the Catholic Church and married beneath his class yet. He never quite threw off the prejudices of that class however and what is important he did recognize and believe that the tendency of history which in those days could be traced back to the Middle Ages was towards the leveling of social ranks and more equal and democratic conditions the French Revolution had in the end brought Napoleon whom he hated but democracy would inevitably come to France his trip to America was to see democracy in practice make noted its shortcomings and errors and then find safeguards against them a nexus to Tocqueville as we have noted appears to have had some appeal to both ends of the political spectrum left and right or rather both have found him to be useful for their purposes in certain circumstances his rational acceptance of the new forces of democracy brought about by the American and French Revolutions made him an icon of left-wing liberals however during the Cold War that is from the end of World War two until the collapse of communism he was adopted by some leading thinkers on the right so there are two sides to his political philosophy and the man himself that we need to look at now.

I would suggest that the Tocqueville's biography is important here you must always bear in mind when reading him that he was an aristocrat and one whose family had suffered in the French Revolution. He wasn't your typical aristocrat because his politics differed from others of his family and social rank he abandoned the Catholic Church and married beneath his class yet. He never quite threw off the prejudices of that class however and what is important he did recognize and believe that the tendency of history which in those days could be traced back to the Middle Ages was towards the leveling of social ranks and more equal and democratic conditions the French Revolution had in the end brought Napoleon whom he hated but democracy would inevitably come to France his trip to America was to see democracy in practice make note of its shortcomings and errors and then find safeguards against them people on both the left and right wings politically have adopted the Tocqueville he appealed to the left wing because he accepted democracy and he appealed to the right wing during the Cold War although he was an aristocrat.

His views differed from his family and other aristocrats. He believed that in the future people would be more equal you what I want to look at today is a question of how much technology if a pen can indeed be called technology perhaps. I should say the instrument of writing effects a writer style and level of production I also want to consider other factors that may have an effect on prose styles such as personality educational background and so on now. Production levels aren't so hard to measure. In relation to the writing instrument used the quill pen for instance would need continual refilling and re sharpening which led to a leisurely balanced style of prose full of simple sentences. Writing took a lot longer than now and a great novelists of the 18th century fielding Smollett. Richardson had a relatively small output. Though some of their books ran to enormous lengths by the middle of the 19th century the fountain pen had been invented. It didn't need such constant refilling which can account for the more flowing discursive style of say Dickens and Thackeray as well as their tremendous output then came the typewriter whose purpose once he got. The hang of it was to speed up the writing process and was therefore much favored by journalists. This it seems to me gave rise to a short. Winded style characterized by short sentences. A short prose style if you like dictating machines and tape recorders led as one novelist complained to writers becoming too conversational rambling and long-winded Henry James although he didn't use these machines dictated his later novels and well some might agree with this accusation. Well it looks as though we're going to have to leave word processors computers and of course the way film but its narrative techniques of affected writing style for another day.

You what I want to look at today is a question of how much technology if a pen can indeed be called technology perhaps I should say the instrument of writing effects a writer style and level of production I also want to consider other factors that may have an effect on prose styles such as personality educational background and so on now production levels aren't so hard to measure in relation to the writing instrument used the quill pen for instance would need continual refilling and re sharpening which led to a leisurely balanced style of prose full of simple sentences writing took a lot longer than now and a great novelists of the 18th century fielding Smollett. Richardson had a relatively small output. Though some of their books ran to enormous lengths by the middle of the 19th century the fountain pen had been invented. It didn't need such constant refilling which can account for the more flowing discursive style of say Dickens and Thackeray as well as their tremendous output then came the typewriter whose purpose once he got. The hang of it was to speed up the writing process and was therefore much favored by journalists. This it seems to me gave rise to a short. Winded style characterized by short sentences. A short prose style if you like dictating machines and tape recorders led as one novelist complained to writers becoming too conversational rambling and long-winded Henry James although he didn't use these machines dictated his later novels and well some might agree with this accusation. Well it looks as though we're going to have to leave. Word processors computers and of course the way film but its narrative techniques have affected writing style for another day the instrument right has views affects their style writing with a quill took a long time so writers tended to write in short sentences they had a balanced style and their output was small writing with a fountain pen led to a more flowing style writing with a typewriter produced a more journalistic style and writers produced much more work some people feel that writers who dictated their work such as Henry James became too conversational.

It is almost impossible these days not to include photography in a course on the history of art. I disagree with people such as Walter. Benjamin who suggests that technology and art don't go well together photography with its realism. Its accurate representation of the thing in front of you initially deprived many artists of their subject matter forcing them to look in new ways. No bad thing. True mass produced images of saved the. Mona Lisa obviously can't provide the same experience of seeing the real painting on the other hand. There are photographs which to my mind. A far more thought-provoking and have greater emotional impact than a painting of the same subject ever could some people say that the traditional idea of an artist with a trained hand and eye is old-fashioned. They no longer believe that an artist needs specialist knowledge. But rather that he or she can simply point a camera at a scene and reported however on the one hand that ignores the creative skill involved in producing photographs on the other hand it also ignores the fact that even in the past painters used various technological aids for example the Dutch painter Vermeer used a camera obscura to help him create his images. We'll go into that later but for now. I want to look at the documentary and cultural value of photography you. It is almost impossible these days not to include photography in a course on the history of art. I disagree with people such as Walter. Benjamin who suggests that technology and art don't go well together photography with its realism. Its accurate representation of the thing in front of you initially deprived many artists of their subject matter forcing them to look in new ways. No bad thing true mass-produced images have saved the.

Mona Lisa obviously can't provide the same experience as seeing the real painting on the other hand. There are photographs which to my mind. A far more thought-provoking and have greater emotional impact than a painting of the same subject ever could some people say that the traditional idea of an artist with a trained hand and eye is old-fashioned. They no longer believe that an artist needs specialist knowledge. But rather that he or she can simply point a camera at a scene and recorded however on one hand that ignores the creative skill involved in producing photographs on the other hand it also ignores the fact that even in the past painters used various technological aids for example the Dutch painter Vermeer used a camera obscura to help him creative images. We'll go into that later but for now I want to look at the documentary and cultural value of photography. The lecturer said that art and technology can exist together. She said that photography forced artists to see in new ways and photographs can have a lot of emotional impact. Some people think photography is easier than traditional art however they don't realize that it takes skill to produce good photos and that many traditional artists such as Vermeer use technology to help them create their images you we appear to take it as a rule or as a law of nature that each species is adapted to the climate of its own home for example species from the Arctic or even a temperate region could not survive in a tropical climate nor could a tropical species last long if it found itself at the South Pole but it is true to say there's too much emphasis placed on the degree of adaptation of species to the climates where they live. We assume that this adaptation if all species are descended from a single form must have taken place over millions of years yet a large number of plants and animals brought from different countries remain perfectly healthy in their new home also. There are several examples of animal species that have extended their range within historical times from warmer to cooler latitudes and the other way round rats and mice provide good examples.

They have been transported by man to many parts of the world and now have a far wider range than any other rodent and they can be found living in the cold climate of the Faroe Islands to the north through the tropical zones to the Falklands in the south it is possible to see adaptation to any climate as a quality that is part of an inborn flexibility of the physical and mental constitution of most animals therefore the ability to survive in the most different climates by both man and his domestic animals and the fact that elephants once existed in an ice age while living species live in tropical areas should not be seen as deviations from the rule but of examples of this flexibility being brought into action. Under particular circumstances you we appear to take it as a rule or as a law of nature that each species is adapted to the climate of its own home for example species from the Arctic or even a temperate region could not survive in a tropical climate nor could a tropical species last long if it found itself at the South Pole but it is true to say there's too much emphasis placed on the degree of adaptation of species to the climates where they live. We assume that this adaptation if all species are descended from a single form must have taken place over millions of years yet a large number of plants and animals brought from different countries remain perfectly healthy in their new home also. There are several examples of animal species that have extended their range within historical times from warmer to cooler latitudes and the other way round rats and mice provide good examples. They have been transported by man to many parts of the world and now have a far wider range than any other rodent and they can be found living in the cold climate of the Faroe Islands to the north through the tropical zones to the Falklands in the south it is possible to see adaptation to any climate as a quality that is part of an inborn flexibility of the physical and mental constitution of most animals therefore the ability to survive in the most different climates by both man and his domestic animals and the fact that elephants once existed in an ice age while living species live in tropical areas should not be seen as deviations from the rule but as examples of this flexibility being brought into action under particular circumstances.

You the lecturer questions the idea that species are so perfectly adapted to the climate and environment they inhabit that they cannot be moved to another set of conditions and survive. The main argument is that species are more adaptable than we think. Using rats as an example of adaptability to show both plants and animals can survive a change of climate and environment. You you today. I want to look at some research that has been done into what motivated people and particularly on what is called the mindset or more simply the mental attitude that highly motivated people have and of course the attitude of those who aren't so motivated or who lose their motivation now. It's obvious that motivation is crucial to performance. But that doesn't tell us where it comes from. Why is it that some people work hard and do well while others can work just as hard and don't why some are committed to what they are doing and others aren't finding answers to this question would be extremely useful to educators as well. As in other areas of life businesses for example have long believed that financial incentives bonuses perks pay rises are the great motivators and to an extent they can make a difference but what we are calling the mindset is more important what has made it difficult to find out what the causes of motivation are is that motivation and the capacity for hard work can be mistaken for talent thinking. It's a gift either. You've got it where you haven't people who believe this have a fixed mindset and are not only going to perform less well than they could but it's also an attitude that will affect their whole outlook on life.

Some say that if talent is something people are born with and you're unlucky enough not to have any then there's not much point in putting in all that extra effort for no real reward however research has shown that if you put in the hours practice brings the same level of achievement as talent. It's a question of changing the fixed attitude and adopting a growth attitude which includes seeing mistakes and failures as opportunities to improve you today. I want to look at some research that has been done into what motivates people and particularly on what is called the mindset or more simply the mental attitude that highly motivated people have and of course the attitude of those who aren't so motivated or who lose their motivation now. It's obvious that motivation is crucial to performance. But that doesn't tell us where it comes from. Why is it that some people work hard and do well while others can work just as hard and don't why some are committed to what they're doing and others aren't finding answers to this question would be extremely useful to educators as well as in other areas of life businesses for example have long believed that financial incentives bonuses perks pay rises are the great motivators and to an extent they can make a difference but what we are calling the mindset is more important what has made it difficult to find out what the causes of motivation are is that motivation and the capacity for hard work can be mistaken for talent thinking. It's a gift either. You've got it where you haven't people who believe this have a fixed mindset and are not only going to perform less well than they could but it's also an attitude that will affect their whole outlook on life. Some say that if talent is something people are born with and you're unlucky enough not to have any then there's not much point in putting in all that extra effort for no real reward however research has shown that if you put in the hours practice brings the same level of achievement as talent it's a question of changing the fixed attitude and adopting a growth attitude which includes seeing stakes and failures that opportunities to improve the subject is motivation and success and how an understanding of what it is would benefit both business and education.

Incentives are not the answer because it is a mental attitude that involves being prepared to work hard and above all learn from mistakes nor is it a question of talent since those who are gifted also need to put in the hours to develop their talent in fact hard work can outdo talent you lecture see. I suppose that it has always been the case for the majority of us that the first test of a work of art or literature or music is how much pleasure it gives us and we don't want to bother with analyzing why or how it has had such an emotional impact on us. It's always good to know what your pleasures are in the positive sense and not as easy as some people think as opposed to only really knowing what you don't like and complaining about it though presumably has some kind of pleasure to be had from that too but now that you've chosen to take a course on the novel. I'm afraid that evaluating literature on the basis of how you feel about a book won't count as an intelligent critical response to the work being studied. It is however useful to remind yourselves from time to time that we all fall for trash every now and again for instance you might actually enjoy listening to a catchy pop song. But he'd find it hard to explain in critical terms that it is good or better than something else just because it is enjoyable. So you're here to sharpen up your critical knives as it were among other things of course lecture see. I suppose that it has always been the case for the majority of us that the first test of a work of art or literature or music is how much pleasure it gives us and we don't want to bother with analyzing why or how it has had such an emotional impact on us.

It's always good to know what your pleasures are in the positive sense and not as easy as some people think as opposed to only really knowing what you don't like and complaining about it though presumably has some kind of pleasure to be had from that too but now that you've chosen to take a course on the novel. I'm afraid that evaluating literature on the basis of how you feel about a book won't count as an intelligent critical response to the work being studied. It is however useful to remind yourselves from time to time that we all fall for trash every now and again for instance you might actually enjoy listening to a catchy pop song but you'd find it hard to explain in critical terms that it is good or better than something else just because it is enjoyable. So you're here to sharpen up your critical knives as it were among other things of course you. The speaker says that while it is good to know what our likes and dislikes are and when you are studying literature the fact that you like a book is not a good criterion for judging it as literature saying you like or dislike a work whether it's music or art or literature is not valid or useful criticism you you. Machiavelli lived from 1469 to 1527 the philosopher Bertrand Russell referred to Machiavelli's most well-known book the prince as a gangster's handbook and while there's no doubt that certain people have read and used it as such. I think that if we put it into the context of when it was written which was Italy especially Florence in the 15th and 16th centuries it will be easier to judge. Machiavelli's reasons for writing it now the Italy of that period was made up of a number of city-states often at war with each other add to that threats from foreign powers especially France and it was a very unstable and dangerous situation.

Machiavelli loved his home city Florence and wanted to protect its culture history and above all independence at all costs one way to do this was to establish an army of Florentines loyal to the city-state of Florence much of Machiavelli's career was taken up with this issue. It must be remembered though that he led an active civic life was deeply into politics and was an ambassador for Florence in this way he got to meet and observe some of the key players of the time and through this came to understand the nature of power and how to hold on to it. The prince was an attempt to teach Florence the lessons he had learnt. Machiavelli lived from 1469 to 1527 the philosopher Bertrand Russell referred to Machiavelli's most well-known book the prince as a gangster's handbook and while there's no doubt that certain people have read and used it as such. I think that if we put it into the context of when it was written which was Italy especially Florence in the 15th and 16th centuries it will be easier to judge. Machiavelli's reasons for writing it now the Italy of that period was made up of a number of city-states often at war with each other and to that threats from foreign powers especially France and it was a very unstable and dangerous situation. Machiavelli loved his home city Florence and wanted to protect its culture history and above all independence at all costs one way to do this was to establish an army of Florentines loyal to the city-state of Florence much of Machiavelli's career was taken up with this issue it must be remembered though that he led an active civic life with deeply into politics and was an ambassador for Florence in this way he got to meet and observe some of the key players of the time and through this came to understand the nature of power and how to hold on to it. The prince was an attempt to teach. Florence the lessons he had learnt you this lecture is about Machiavelli and his book the prince and how he got a bad reputation as a ruthless man who will do anything to get what he wants.

The lecturers aim is to try and persuade us to look at the book in its historical context to see why he wrote it and to show that his reputation is undeserved. Machiavelli loved his hometown Florence and was prepared to do anything to protect it at the time it was threatened by several enemies so only harsh measures would do. There was a time when the subject of happiness was the business of philosophers as part of their discussion of what makes for the good life then much later psychologists and sociologists got in on the act and now it seems so is the government. I understand that government should have the welfare and well-being of those it governs at heart from the purely practical point of view of keeping people quiet at home enjoying their gadgets and comfort rather than on the streets rioting but surely it's not something you can legislate for today. There are numerous journals on the topic and it is even included in the curriculum at some universities and colleges surveys are done. Statistics compiled graph drawn yet. All they seem to prove is what most people have concluded themselves from personal experience. An obvious example would be that having a lot of money doesn't necessarily make you happy. We all wish to be happy and have ideas about what it is. We think would make us so but we also know or suspect but it's not that easy most of us learned that it is a byproduct of something else usually being totally absorbed or involved in some task or pastime and can only be reached that way these activities of course must be worthwhile in themselves. There was a time when the subject of happiness was the business of philosophers as part of their discussion of what makes for the good life then much later psychologists and sociologists got in on the act and now it seems so is the government. I understand that government should have the welfare and well-being of those it governs at heart from the purely practical point of view of keeping people quiet at home enjoying their gadgets and comfort rather than on the streets rioting but surely it's not something you can legislate for today.

There are numerous journals on the topic and it is even included in the curriculum at some universities and colleges surveys are done. Statistics compiled graph drawn it. All they seem to prove is what most people have concluded themselves from personal experience. An obvious example would be that having a lot of money doesn't necessarily make you happy. We all wish to be happy and have ideas about what it is. We think would make us so but we also know or suspect but it's not that easy most of us learn that it is a byproduct of something else usually being totally absorbed or involved in some task or pastime and can only be reached that way these activities of course must be worthwhile in themselves. The lecturer talks about the subject of happiness. And how although it was once mainly the concern of philosophers it has now become an academic subject and a concern of governments who try to incorporate it into policy. The speaker is a bit cynical about how the theories about happiness have been presented by non philosophers and how the conclusions they come to are mostly obvious to the average person you lecture see. We have briefly looked at some of the involved in running a biggish city like say melbourne keeping the road and rail systems running policing providing food and housing and so on in another lecture. I'm going to deal with what we must. Now call the megalopolis cities with populations of ten million or more however first I want to go back in history to when the population of cities could be numbered in the thousands rather than the millions. One of the earliest theorists of the city was of course. Plato who created an ideal city in his text the Republic the population of this city would be around twenty-five to thirty thousand at most oddly enough the same figures were chosen by Leonardo da Vinci for his ideal cities now of these twenty-five to thirty thousand inhabitants.

Only about five thousand would be citizens a reason for this might be that it is the largest number that could be addressed publicly at one time and by one person and makes a voting system much easier to manage also perhaps the numbers are kept deliberately low because a large population would be hard to control or because in practical terms. Fewer inhabitants are easier to feed from local supplies without having to depend on outside sources lecture see. We have briefly looked at some of the problems. Involved in running a biggish city like say melbourne keeping the road and rail systems running policing providing food and housing and so on in another lecture. I'm going to deal with what we must. Now call the megalopolis cities with populations of 10 million or more however first. I want to go back in history to when the population of cities could be numbered in the thousands rather than the millions one of the earliest theorists of the city was of course Plato who created an ideal city in his text the Republic the population of this city would be around 25 to 30 thousand at most oddly enough the same figures were chosen by Leonardo da Vinci for his ideal cities now of these 25 to 30 thousand inhabitants only about 5,000 would be citizens a reason for this might be that it is the largest number that could be addressed publicly at one time and by one person and makes a voting system much easier to manage also perhaps the numbers are kept deliberately low because a large population would be hard to control or because in practical terms fewer inhabitants are easier to feed from local supplies without having to depend on outside sources after a brief mention of the megalopolis. The lecturer focuses on the small city state particularly ideal cities. Like those imagined by plato and da vinci he puts forward possible reasons why the number of citizens was limited to about 5,000 suggesting that small numbers made voting easier and were easier to feed on food produced locally instead of having to import it.