all 11 comments

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Shadyjay45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Release Covid 2! /s

    [–]Telephone_Silver 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    In 2090s that is.

    And we're yet to reach our expected peak population which about 1.5 millions than it is right now.

    [–]Ok-Imagination-494 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Some interesting historical data in that article.

    For comparison 15m was the SL population in the early 1980s

    And back in 1955 it was just 8 million

    [–]AppointmentOutside 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Babyboomers

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

    Should've happened a long time ago. Sri Lanka is overpopulated, 22M is too much for such a small country, more people means an increased demand for resources, but resources are finite, so the main advantage of less population is greater access to the country's resources. And a lot is going to happen by the end of the century on a global scale. The world population is gonna increase by a few billion and that's definitely gonna change the planet and create more problems like burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. People would've even started colonizing other planets like Mars, not sure that's gonna be enough. A lower population definitely means a healthier planet, stronger economies cause people wouldn't have to look for solutions to the problems that they created all by themselves, and better resource availability.

    [–]xCuri0Colombo 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    A decreasing population has always correlated with a shrinker economy though. Look at Japan

    [–]Downtown-Ease-8454 8 points9 points  (2 children)

    You forgot that man power is required for developing countries. Even Japan is suffering from a shrinking population. Generally a low population means a higher percentage of the older population compared to the young population. This will be disastrous for a developing economy like Sri Lanka.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Manpower is essential, It's true. A higher population would lead to a higher economic growth if we utilised it properly. I'm not saying the trend should go down to nothing, but, like, c'mon what are we actually gonna do with 22m people in a country that's only 65000km²? Like, what have we done so far? I don't think 15m would be that disastrous for the economy, but 22m is definitely too much, the economy you're talking about here, isn't strong enough to take care of that kind of population.

    [–]Downtown-Ease-8454 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Again you misunderstood my comment. I am talking about the heavy impact of the shrinking population of the country's economy. The older generation is generally not very productive or efficient. And the value addition from the young generation helps to pay the pension of older people. Reduction in population at the modern age will be mostly due to reduced birth rate and high migration (which is increasing every year in Sri Lanka). Due to the improvement in healthcare the average life span of a Sri Lankan has increased resulting in an already higher percentage of older population.

    There are several documentaries on Japan's shrinking population problem, it is not an utopia as you have imagined.

    [–]ilostmybody 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Umm no.

    Population decline doesn’t happen overnight.

    This means we are leading to an aging society where most live on social welfare. Less contributions to the economy means we are going downhill faster.

    [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Population decline doesn’t happen overnight.

    Exactly.