Regarding the contrast in durability between corporations and cities: I think this mostly a matter of definition. Nearly everything about a city - who lives there, what language is spoken, what industries it has - can change, and we'd call it the same city. Yet a company can be bought out, and keep most of the same staff, and we'd say the company "died."
That's because a company is defined by ephemeral things, such as what activities it engages in and what its name is. At base, it is a collection of people working on the same task. A company could dissolve, and all its people could keep working in the same building, doing different things, but again, the company would be dead.
On the other hand, the only thing that really ties a city's inhabitants together is that they happen to be in the same place. And unless the city is nuked, SOMEONE will probably always want to live there. So the city has a seemingly continuous life, even though nearly everything about it changes over time. What doesn't change is, say, the fact that it's located on a river. Which will always be a desirable feature.
That's because a company is defined by ephemeral things, such as what activities it engages in and what its name is. At base, it is a collection of people working on the same task. A company could dissolve, and all its people could keep working in the same building, doing different things, but again, the company would be dead.
On the other hand, the only thing that really ties a city's inhabitants together is that they happen to be in the same place. And unless the city is nuked, SOMEONE will probably always want to live there. So the city has a seemingly continuous life, even though nearly everything about it changes over time. What doesn't change is, say, the fact that it's located on a river. Which will always be a desirable feature.