Sri Lanka’s declining birth rate meant we now have a manageable population, largely due to education.
Sri Lanka is relatively functional today because earlier governments invested in health and education. Both matter because they create functional citizens. Education is especially important because female education is highly correlated with lower birth rates. Compare Sri Lanka to India or Bangladesh and you can see how poverty breeds poverty, and the cost that can have 50 years down the line.
As you can see from the graph above, Sri Lanka’s birth rate declined dramatically over the last century, meaning our problems are a lot smaller than India or Bangladesh. This is largely due to female education.
As Serendipity points out, however, the current Education budget is 15% of Defense. As a comparison, the US Education budget is about 90% of Defense. India spends about 70%. I thought those numbers would be closer to Sri Lanka, but they’re not. So not good.
While keeping the peace is undoubtably a great boon to the people of Sri Lanka, we also have to consider what the greatest investment for the future is. Infrastructure is good, but infrastructure without people that know how to run it is just money for the (usually foreign) people that do.
And have no doubt about it, the education system is messed. Unemployment increases with level of education, showing that the system actually makes people less employable than not educating them at all. Personally, I’ve dealt with tons of CVs which are just depressing, they have a degree, but can’t speak English, they can speak English, but can’t fill out a CV, the job doesn’t require English and they fit, but they want a government job.
These are often kids that work hard and do what they’re supposed to do, it’s just that the contract is broken at the end. The Education system is resistant to change, and the government resists changing it, but that remains the single best investment we can make in the future of Sri Lanka. Its people.
Biggest item of spend by far is defence, interest is close behind followed by salaries.
A fifth of all revenue is spent on defence.
Sri Lanka should be prepared to wipe out any future insurgencies and wipe them out good, with overwhelming force.
The birth rate has indeed gone down in Sri Lanka over the years with the introduction of the birth control methods in late 1960’s and early 1070’s . But we need to analyze this situation in terms of ethnicities. It is the Sinhalese community which is largely adhering to the birth control methods resulting in the maximum number of kids in a family limiting to two. This is not the case with Tamils and Muslims. The average family members of the latter community is 8 to 10. This is very much visible in the Eastern district of the country where the Muslim community is the majority. The average number of kids in a Muslim family in those district is as higher as 12.
So what are the implications of this situation?. In a decade time the implications will be more visible as there will be a major demographic change in the ethnicity wise. Countries like Singapore has adopted methods to balance the demographic status among the communities by maintaining the number of kids among the families irrespective of the ethnicity that they belong to. If Singapore had not adopted such a method the majority community of Singapore would have been Muslims given the ethnic composition of that country which comprises of three major communities namely Chinese, Tamils and Muslims. (Chinese are the majority community in Singapore)
So the situation in Sri Lanka is not promising as it appears to be . Though the overall birth rate has appeared to have gone down there are other implications under the surface which will certainly create major problems to Sri Lanka’s well being in the near future
It’s simply not true that ‘other’ races have such high birth rates.
Old data from 1955-89 shows that the Sinhalese birth rate declined by 41.4%, the Muslim birth rate declined by 39%.
“There have been claims that the population size of some ethnic groups is increasing faster than others and that, consequently, the present ethnic balance in the country could change considerably. This argument has been levelled in particular against the Moor community, whose level of fertility is still higher than all other ethnic groups in the country. However, it has been demonstrated that the Moors have also participated in the fertility transition, even though they have been slower than the others to enter the transition process.”
http://www.unescap.org/esid/psis/population/journal/Articles/2001/V16N3A2.pdf
Honestly, how many children Muslims or Tamils have is their business. They’re all Sri Lankan children. It’s simply not true that the Muslims are having dozens of kids and outbreeding the Sinhalese. It’s also a bit racist to presume that more Muslims is a bad thing.
Unless government spending is curtailed, we may find ourselves in serious trouble. The deficit is equal to the revenue, which is saying something, the difference is covered by debt.
Yes lets spend all our money on treating symptoms instead of curing the illness…what a genius thought to go along with the bad grammar.
Overpopulation IS a bad thing, a very bad thing. Sri Lanka is already way overcrowded and cramped.I think it is one of the prime factors affecting the quality of life in the country. There is just not enough land for all the people.
apparently the defense department is still making payments for weapons purchased during the war.
Not too happy about defense getting more money than education.
Agree with Indi’s comment. Why bother about how many kids anyone else is having, as long as there are no restrictions on anyone, and the parents look after them well?
We should offer some incentives for inter-racial marriages.
The main aim of the Muslim fundamentalists in Sri lanka is to turn Sri Lanka to an Islamic state. They are hell bent for achieving this target. They even have set a targeted time frame for that which is said to have been in 20 years. They have arrived at this conclusion by judging the huge population growth of their community that they have purposely unleashed to achieve the said target. This is being achieved by other ways and means too such as converting Buddhists , Hindus and Christians into Islam and marring women belonging to other races, employing methods of deception. So all peace loving Sri Lankans should be aware of the vicious methods employed by fundamentalist Muslims in Sri Lanka to destroy its peacefulness.
As far as I can tell, they just want to raise their families and maybe go to DineMor. Same as you and me.
Alleging that different birth rates is an organized conspiracy is new. Also… a bit racist
All i can say is i know plenty of muslims who are all happy go lucky one week, then have some religious epiphany and sudden all his on islamic friends become kaffirs. I religion where apostasy is a capital punishment is not something that should ever spread.
I know plenty of very religious muslims who are quite great. I’ve never met anyone that treated me like an outsider.
The apostasy thing is common to all Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).
Only in islam do we see scripture calling for aphostastes to be executed.
Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.017
Plenty of countries with sharia law enforce these hadiths. not only that they teach this shit to their kids as well. This is what you get in saudi government school text books
“An Apostate will be suppressed three days in prison in order that he may repent ….. otherwise, he should be killed, because he has changed his true religion, therefore, there is no use from his living, regardless of being a man or a woman, as Mohammed said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Saudi_Arabia
according to islamic law, had i been born into islam, i just committed a capital offense. I don’t know how people could be cool with this type of shit.
Rubbish. SL has the same population density as Germany. It’s just that large areas are underdeveloped and do not support an acceptable lifestyle. Development and a better infrastructure (transport systems that can carry people from the countryside to the city for work and back, so that they don’t need to live in the city) is the answer, not curtailing population growth. SL is aging as a population, so we do need more kids.
Yes, that was the story that was going around but three years after a war it does seem to be a lot. It also sends the wrong signal to investors. Even a token cut would be symbolic of a serious intent to control the deficit and thus pave the way for sustainable tax cuts. Although people are very happy about the cut in income tax, many are wondering if this can be sustained if expenditure is not controlled.
It would be also be interesting to know where the money is being spent, at the minimum what old bills are being repaid, what was bought and how much more needs to be paid off.
This commission was appointed:
http://www.island.lk/2006/12/10/news1.html
but when the report was out they refused to divulge any details!
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/110612/Columns/lobby.html
However SF was charged on the very same grounds and there was no issue of national security in that case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11345729
It’s not rubbish at all. Sri Lanka suffers from a serious case of overpopulation. It has one of the highest population densities in Asia. There are too many people on too little land. And the population keeps growing. Sri Lanka is a cramped, overcrowded place and it does affect the quality of life; I would say it’s pretty obvious to any outside observer. I think an island of the size of Sri Lanka should ideally have only about 2-3 million people. People who think it is ok to have as many babies as they want and “god will provide” need to be packed off to a re-education camp.
Sri Lanka does not have one of the highest population densities in Asia, not by a long shot. Sri Lanka’s pop density is about 300 ppl per kilometer, 44th in the world. Compare that with Singapore (7,148/km) or Bangladesh (988/km). Also more dense than Sri Lanka – India, Japan, South Korea, Macau, Maldives, and Taiwan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
Even if you just travel around, it’s really not that dense. Also get out and a roof and look at Colombo. It’s very green, very low, and – compared to major cities even in India – very sparsely populated. As you can see from the graph above, we’ve actually managed our population (size) pretty well.
Being 44th in the world for population density is nothing to be proud of at all, especially considering Sri Lanka has a relatively tiny population of 20 million. All the countries you mention are crowded and cramped. Japan may be developed but it is way over crowded with tiny homes, cramped streets and long lines everywhere. Sometimes you can’t even walk the streets without brushing shoulders with strangers at every step. And everyone in Singapore lives in flats, only very very few people own landed property and they are the super rich. Space is at an absolute premium despite the nice roads and landscaping. Need we speak of India and how crowded and cramped it is?
Sri Lanka is indeed quite densely populated. It may be “normal” to people who live in Sri Lanka because they may not know any better. But the first thing you notice when you arrive in Sri Lanka is how cramped everything is. Houses and shops are just basically on the edge of the road. In some places you can actually physically touch parapet walls or the windows of houses from your vehicle. It is a mammoth effort just to turn the car around. The size of land parcels are tiny and are getting ever smaller as the population grows. Whole generations of families live in the same tiny house. Very little of nature is untouched by humans. Sri Lanka should be actively encouraging its population to migrate overseas, not encouraging more people to settle in Sri Lanka.
Sri Lankans will never have a quality of life on par with Americans/Canadians/Australians/New Zealanders etc because of the lack of space. They will never have nice spread out suburbs or private spaces or large houses and gardens. This is what happens when there are too many people in a small area of land.
I don’t think that this is a new theory. The monk Soma was a very vocal proponent of this view.
Attacking Muslims in this country by raising false alarms is cruel and unnecessary, and it has to stop.
We can see more exaggerated writings on Population growth, apostasy, female right, hijab, beef eating etc . by out of context quoting of scriptures or public statistic and highlighting isolated events.
But less talking about more than 10% of the Muslim living in refugee camps, a considerable portion of Muslims is living below poverty line and about low education level compared to other communities and discrimination of Muslim students in schools and universities… etc.
Again, Omr, bullshit. As I told you already, SL has the SAME POPULATION DENSITY AS GERMANY (I guess you missed that bit). Is Germany overpopulated? Nein. Is it developed? Oh ja. So the prob in SL, which has the same population density (just checking you’ve got that) isn’t overpopulation, but underdevelopment.
SL is NOT crowded and cramped, as a quick drive into the Dry Zone (an area that covers the larger part of SL — in case you haven’t checked a map) will show you. Colombo, Kandy, etc ARE in fact crowded and cramped, as are New York City, Tokyo, and many cities (since you think shoulder-brushing is the indicator we should check). Meanwhile, huge areas of the countryside in SL are empty, because if you want to work outside of agriculture or fisheries, you gotta live in an urban area. The answer to is create transport infrastructure that allows rural dwellers to travel in and out of the cities on a daily basis so that they don’t have to live there.
If large numbers continue to live in the countryside while working in the city, those areas will have to develop to capture their spending money. We are already seeing supermarkets and department stores moving further into the suburbs to get that custom. The same will follow with all other systems that those inhabitants require — from banking to entertainment to restaurants.
If you look at Wattala or Negombo, you can already see that — they don’t need to come into Colombo at all on the weekends; just for work. If there was a good road and rail system, people as far away as Puttalam and Galle could stay in their hometowns where there’s plenty of cheap land and housing.
I don’t know which planet you live on, Omr, but you need to get over to this one and have a drive around.
Actually the Bible’s full of stuff about stoning adulterers and burning witches and treating women like slaves. Interpretation is the keyword.
Don’t forget violence in Hinduism. As anyone reading the bhagavad gita can readily see. As Blacker said, it all depends on interpretation. Also, every word written thousands of years ago is not applicable today. When will people realize this fact!
Wow, you’re so racist!
Do you know ANYTHING about Islam? Or does all your “INFO” come from ANTI-MUSLIM WEBSITES?
I thought LTTE were the LAST racists in SL? Guess I’m WRONG!
Mohsin, there certainly are a lot of inappropriate things in the Quran. There is nothing “racist” in criticizing them. May I suggest: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran
Some of the more offensive contents of the Quran: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
Everything depends on interpretation. But how things are getting interpreted right now is what matters. Christianity, generally speaking, isn’t into stoning people or burning witches these days, that makes it markedly less dangerous. Although the creationist movement is pretty disturbing. Islam as it is practiced in many countries carries a much more dangerous interpretation than Christianity.
Germany and most of Europe IS overpopulated. Infact Europe is one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Their homes, infrastructure, living space cannot be compared to the US/Canada/Australia. Infact, the Germans actually fought for “lebensraum” (living space) under Hitler. And in Sri Lanka not a day goes by without people killing each other over a few feet of land. The island would be CROWDED even if people were settled in a more equitable fashion. 20 million+ people are crammed into an island the size of Tasmania – take away inland waters, national parks, roads and mountains as well as agricultural land, and the land available for settlement is even less. There are no “huge areas” in Sri Lanka – the island is small itself, tinier than most Indian states. The southern part of the country is WAY OVERCROWDED. Have you stepped out of your house lately?
Your pile of bullshit is stacking up, Omr. Europe is NOT overpopulated. It is more crowded than the countries you mention, yes, but if you think the ideal population/land ratio is to have several million people in a few urban centres while the rest of the country is wilderness with a bit of farmland, you clearly don’t understand what overpopulation is. The latter is when the infrastructure and resources are at maximum capacity and overwhelmed by the population. That is clearly not the case in Europe. Western Europeans have a better quality of life than the less densely populated US Americans.
Germany’s Lebensraum wasn’t motivated by a lack of space, dimwit; it was a result of the Great Depression exacerbated by backbreaking punitive sanctions placed on it by the Western Allies at the end of WW1. Pick up a book and read it without just looking at those pretty pictures.
The killing in SL over land disputes is because (as already explained to you), desirable land close to urban centres are now rare. Plus the fact that the courts take a generation to resolve the cases. Once more (read it slowly) GERMANY & SL HAVE THE SAME POPULATION DENSITY. The same (at least until a few years ago). Why aren’t Germans killing each other over land then? Because they are distributed in a fashion where a commuter can travel a 100km to work each morning in an hour, and so can live in a small town or village where land is cheap and available.
SL is only the 44th most densely populated country in the world. Singapore (in 3rd place) is MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES AS DENSELY POPULATED AS SL. Do you think Singapore is overpopulated? Overpopulation isn’t about numbers or space; it’s about resources and infrastructure.
The “huge” underpopulated areas in SL are admittedly relative to the size of the island, but they are still relatively “huge”. Drive into the North Central Province and turn off a highway north of Habarana or Anuradhapura, and you can drive for hours without seeing a single dwelling. There are massive areas between those roads which have no human population whatsoever. But you can’t live there unless you’re satisfied with subsistence farming.
You should just stick to calling the minorities racist names nad leave the adult discussions to those who’ve got a clue.
Your pile of bullshit is stacking up, Omr. Europe is NOT overpopulated. It is more crowded than the countries you mention, yes, but if you think the ideal population/land ratio is to have several million people in a few urban centres while the rest of the country is wilderness with a bit of farmland, you clearly don’t understand what overpopulation is. The latter is when the infrastructure and resources are at maximum capacity and overwhelmed by the population. That is clearly not the case in Europe. Western Europeans have a better quality of life than the less densely populated US Americans.
Germany’s Lebensraum wasn’t motivated by a lack of space, dimwit; it was a result of the Great Depression exacerbated by backbreaking punitive sanctions placed on it by the Western Allies at the end of WW1. Pick up a book and read it without just looking at those pretty pictures.
The killing in SL over land disputes is because (as already explained to you), desirable land close to urban centres are now rare. Plus the fact that the courts take a generation to resolve the cases. Once more (read it slowly) GERMANY & SL HAVE THE SAME POPULATION DENSITY. The same (at least until a few years ago). Why aren’t Germans killing each other over land then? Because they are distributed in a fashion where a commuter can travel a 100km to work each morning in an hour, and so can live in a small town or village where land is cheap and available.
SL is only the 44th most densely populated country in the world. Singapore (in 3rd place) is MORE THAN TWENTY TIMES AS DENSELY POPULATED AS SL. Do you think Singapore is overpopulated? Overpopulation isn’t about numbers or space; it’s about resources and infrastructure.
The “huge” underpopulated areas in SL are admittedly relative to the size of the island, but they are still relatively “huge”. Drive into the North Central Province and turn off a highway north of Habarana or Anuradhapura, and you can drive for hours without seeing a single dwelling. There are massive areas between those roads which have no human population whatsoever. But you can’t live there unless you’re satisfied with subsistence farming.
You should just stick to calling the minorities racist names and leave the adult discussions to those who’ve got a clue.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe David, but Europe is OVERPOPULATED and so is Sri Lanka. Globally the world is overpopulated but most of this population lives in the developing world, mainly in India and China. Asia – in general – is a crowded shithole. And if there weren’t any famines or the bubonic plague Europe would be keeling over with an excess population on too little land. Same issue in Sri Lanka. There are too many people crammed into 65 000 square kilometres of land. Drive for hours without seeing a dwelling? In Sri Lanka? Doesn’t matter because the vast majority of the population almost live on top of each other, cramped into tiny plots of land, in tiny dwellings, with tiny little roads and crowded streets. If you’ve happened to live in the US, Canada/Australia/New Zealand/Dubai you would realise that having more room to breathe and move is really much better. Drive from Colombo to Kandy and it is just packed with people, houses crammed over each others, shops you can touch with your hand while you drive by – this might be “normal” and “no problem” to you but I see it as a distinct disadvantage. Don’t get pissed off because I’m pointing out that Sri Lanka is over populated and crowded, ask any tourist whether they think Sri Lanka is crowded or not and they’ll give you an answer. And to think that SL’s population is growing? Ugh.
I do believe LACK OF LAND SPACE is a prime factor affecting the quality of life of Sri Lankans. If Sri Lanka had more land space and each family had a PROPER plot of land, significantly distanced from their neighbours, life in the island would be a lot better. Like it or lump it I am not going to change my mind.
Sri Lanka simply isn’t overpopulated in that sense, not by any measurable metric. Yes shops do crowd along the roads, but go 100 meters back and it’s jungle again. Along, say, the Dambulla – Trinco Road you can go for kilometers without passing a human settlement. Also, turn of the A9 road at any point.
Sri Lanka actually has enough space and a decent birthrate. The only overpopulation would be in Colombo slums. What we really need is a decent public transit and trains so people can live out and commute better.
Lol, Omr, you can insist as much as you like, or even stamp your little feet, but unless you can show a criteria for your evaluation of overpopulation in Europe, it’s just more laughable BS. Having a large population, or even a dense population is NOT the criteria, no matter what your personal opinion is. The accepted criteria (already pointed out to you, and to which you have no answer) is this: “Overpopulation is a condition where an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation). This is patently not so in Europe, and neither is it in SL. The capacity of the habitat in Europe is more than sufficient. In SL the capacity is there but the development necessary to tap into isn’t. Once that development happens, population numbers will not be an issue. At the moment the population is crowded into PART of the habitat. I’m surprised that you don’t have the capacity to understand this simple concept. So contrary to your silly claim that too many people are crammed into 65,000 square kms, the reality is that too many people are crammed into about 6,500 square kms. 90% of the land is unpopulated.
I have in fact lived in Germany for a number of years and, yes, there’s no doubt that having more space is desirable. And that space is achieved by spreading the people out over the available land and not forcing them to live in cities. The same needs to be done here. Yes, if you drive from Colombo to Kandy, it looks crowded because you’re driving along the ONLY available highway, and everyone is clustered along it because the only way to access it is by direct proximity. Meanwhile, the hinterland away from the highway is empty. So the answer isn’t to reduce or curtail the population, but to provide it with an efficient transport and infrastructure system that will allow the hinterland to be accessible.
I’m not pissed off at anything you’re pointing out, because what you are actually claiming is in fact a fallacy. You’re looking at the surface problem and making an assessment that is based simply on what you can see. Lots of people standing in front of me = ooh, must be overpopulation. Can’t get a seat in the cinema = OMG, overpopulation. Bus is crowded = WTF overpopulation. In reality, if you had more cinemas, buses, etc in places where people could live, they’d stay there and not stand in your way or take your seat.
“I do believe LACK OF LAND SPACE is a prime factor affecting the quality of life of Sri Lankans. If Sri Lanka had more land space and each family had a PROPER plot of land, significantly distanced from their neighbours, life in the island would be a lot better.”
You can believe in Santa too if you like, but the point is there is NO lack of space in SL. What there is is a LACK OF ACCESS to and from the countryside, making it largely unusable. So there is enough space for a PROPER plot of land, just no way to get to and from it. So the solution is to provide that means.
“Like it or lump it I am not going to change my mind.”
You’re quite free to keep your head firmly up your arse if you wish, and I will have to neither like it nor lump it anymore than if you claimed the earth was flat. It’s just you making a public fool of yourself every time you make the claim :D
Well Christian interpretation of the Bible has led to people killing doctors performing abortions, murdering or attacking homosexuals, refusing to allow contraception and/or prophylactics, and widespread child abuse in the clergy. And this in the developed west today. Islam is largely prevalent in countries that are socially underdeveloped, where interpretation of the Koran is literal, just as it was in the Christian west a couple of centuries ago. As those societies develop, their interpretation will be influenced as well.
*yawn* – I’m not the one with the problem here – you just can’t stand that I’m right and you’re wrong. So you go one one of your rants yet again :) Don’t be pissed off because I seem to be “dissing” Sri Lanka. It’s not my fault that Sri Lankans have bred like rats over several decades (add the success against Malaria here as well) and find themselves in a cramped environment, in a tiny little island. 20 million+ people in 65 000 sq kms of land is a LOT of people in TOO LITTLE land. Think about it. It is actually quite hellish.
Sri Lanka, as an island on the whole, is overpopulated. There is too much demographic pressure already. Let me know how big a usual plot of land is in Sri Lanka. They are so small Sri Lankans buy in perches! We are better off than India and Bangladesh but that is not saying much at all. Our population is actually GROWING not shrinking, and as more and more resources become scarce there will be all sorts of problems to fix. If there is one positive thing about the war is that it caused a lot of people to move out of Sri Lanka. The government of Sri Lanka should be actively encouraging people to migrate out of Sri Lanka and improving the lot of people who choose to stay. Dividing scarce land and money between 2 million people and 20 million people – which would you choose? Duh!
There is NOTHING good in having a huge population crammed into a little space – unless you like living in cramped little flats or tiny little houses with no room to breathe. Like I said, ask any non-Sri Lankan about their impression of Sri Lanka when it comes to being cramped and crowded and they will let you know what they think …
You think Sri Lankans will EVER be able to live like this: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=398065 given 20 million people crammed into 65 000 sq kms? Please….
Ha ha, you’re stamping your little feet again. 20 million people are NOT living in 65,000 square km’s. Thanks for the link. Yup, that’s exactly how SL could be living if we had a proper transport system. Thanks for arguing my point instead of your own; I’d have done the same in your place ;)
As for your “dissing” of SL, if I was concerned about the opinions of nameless internet trolls, I’d have slashed my wrists years ago.
I await the launch of some personal attacks now that your er… “argument” has fallen apart.
That’s all you have as a reply? Lame.
Keep fantasizing that Sri lankans can have the same quality of life as people in the US/Canada/Australia/NZ: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=397177 – then go and see how even in the Netherlands people live in cramped houses because of the lack of space (and thankfully their country is all flat!).
I never said that SL will have the same quality of life as the US, etc, but that’s nothing to do with the population density. You are now comparing 3rd world quality to 1st world and patting yourself on the back. Point is, Europeans who live far more densely than Americans, have a better quality of life than Americans. Again, population density has nothing to do with it.
I have been to the Netherlands, and I can tell you I’d rather live there than in North America.
Keep it up, Omr, I’ve never seen anyone demolish their own arguments so swiftly and effectively since Prof Heshan departed. Oops ;)
Well I was saying that SL will never have the same quality of life as the US/Canada/Aus and one of the reasons for that is the LACK OF LAND. Europeans have a shittier quality of life than Americans in general, sorry. They have generally shit weather (barring the Mediterranean countries), small and old houses, one car (if any), small roads, tiny suburbs. A typical ‘house’ in England is a cramped piece of shit to be honest, with ceilings so low you could bang your head. A typical ‘house’ in the Netherlands is a row of duplexes with a tiny patch of land to hang out the washing at the back. You open your door and there is your car and right behind it the open road. Nice.
But lack of land ISN’T a prob. ACCESS to and from the land is. Should I use smaller words, or do you need a drawing?
As for your view of Europe, perhaps you should actually visit there instead of taking Charles Dickens as your source. The apartments and houses I lived in in Europe were large, well lit, and generally as good as anything you’d see in an American suburb or small town. Compare an apartment in Hamburg or Amsterdam with one in NYC, and there’s no difference. In addition, many families have multiple cars (if they need it). Most don’t need multiple cars because public transport’s much better than in the US. In addition, they have better healthcare and a better standard of primary education. They’ve also go something called culture.
None of this, however, has anything to do with population density, which is your unit of measure on quality of life. Now, do you actually have any facts or do you prefer to simply insult people like monkeys throwing shit?
Lack of land IS a problem. Sri Lanka lacks enough land to give its citizens a quality of life on par with the US/Canada/Australia/NZ. The reason being that Sri Lanka has way too many people. Even if you settled every inch and destroyed the environment and scenic beauty in the process Sri Lanka would still not have enough land to build enough suburbs like that exist in the US/AUS for all its people. What Sri Lankans can best hope for a plenty of high rises, tiny little houses and tiny patches of land. Sri Lanka would be a MUCH better and comfortable place to live if the total population sat around 3 to 5 million. The privileged in Europe may have nice apartments but most common folk live in shitty housing. Even in England they are just shitty little apartments in oh-s0-ugly state housing towers. Compare the size of a bedroom in say Britain, or the Netherlands with a that of a typical house in the US or Australia? I mean who are you trying to kid? You ain’t the only one who has been around the world. Tell me, how many Americans are moving to live in Europe permanently and how many Europeans are moving to the US to live permanently? Just check whether there is any disparity between the two stats. There’s some research for you to do! lol
And the only person throwing out personal insults here is you.
If SL lacks enough land, why are huge areas of the country unpopulated? Your claim is illogical and ignorant. You don’t need to settle every inch, because humans are not plants that require a number of square metres per person. They live in communities and families in shared space.
No doubt, the US and Australia have the luxury of more space than they need, but yet American cities are full of inner city slums with people living like rats. Nothing to do with population density.
What SL CAN actually hope for is a proper infrastructure and transport network that will enable them to live in their hometowns and travel to work in the city daily.
I can assure you I was never a pert of the privileged in Europe or anywhere else, and yet I was able to live in a nice medium-sized apartment in a small town, surrounded by scenery and fresh air, send my son to a school where there were less than 20 kids per teacher, and travel an hour and a half to work in a city of a million people. Hardly the shitty lifestyle you describe. Also, simply having a bigger bedroom isn’t an indication of quality. Most Americans just can’t afford those big bedrooms anymore, can they?
We’ll have to take your word about being around the world; did you ever pull your head out of your arse while you were doing it?
You’re correct about the Europeans moving to the US outnumbering the Americans moving to Europe. But that is mostly because Americans can’t really live and work in continental Europe if they don’t speak the local lingo, and most Americans can’t, and don’t want to learn. So they’re stuck with the British Isles, which obviously provides limited opportunities. On the other hand, most western Europeans either already speak English or are willing to learn it. But since you use Australia as an example, can you explain why Australians moving to the UK outnumber Brits moving down under?
So back to the population density point. Got one?
There are no “huge areas that are unpopulated” in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is a tiny little island and the land that is unpopulated would fit into an Australian cattle farm! What do you mean by “huge areas”? I mean seriously? If you want to give 20 million people homes like in the US/Canada/Aus you would have to use pretty much all of Sri Lanka and get rid of Yala and Wilpattu as well. Maybe even flatten the central mountainous region for good measure. An American “slum” is absolutely nothing compared to what exists in Sri Lanka. A low income neighbourhood in the States (or Canada, or Aus, or NZ) looks a hundred times better than a high class neighbourhood in Sri Lanka (eg Merionette Park, Chicago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/reallyboring/3460122567/ ) . Sri Lanka does not even have proper neighbourhoods or suburbs. Just a conglomeration of houses plonked down willy nilly where you can almost hear your neighbour fart.
Housing in Europe is absolute shite compared to housing in the USA, Australia, Canada or NZ. I don’t know what you would call a “medium sized apartment” but if it is European standards then it would be a pissy little thing. Most Americans, in comparison have a landed house, a sizable garden, one or two cars and loads and loads of parks and free space. Ditto for the Canadians and Australians.
There are more Europeans moving to live in the US because the US offers a better quality of life and more opportunities. And there are far less Americans moving to live permanently in Europe because Europe offers a crappier quality of life. It has nothing to do about some BS about knowing or not knowing the local lingo. The US offers Europeans living in their cramped countries the freedom of space. That’s why the traffic is basically one sided. And as for Australians – how many have moved to the UK PERMANENTLY? Very, very few. The vast majority go to London on a temporary basis as it is a financial capital so they can further their careers, but on the other hand tens of thousands of British move to Australia on a permanent basis. Wonder why?? Better quality of life perhaps?
As I told you, size is relative. If 90% of the area is unpopulated, that’s a huge area in comparison to what is populated. Talking about Australian farms is just dumb. Half of Australia is a dustbowl that no one wants to live in.
You’d need to get rid of Yala, etc, only if you had a moronic idea to give everyone a little plot of “proper” land as you suggest. No one else wants that. All you do is have smaller towns and villages spread out across the country from where people can travel to the big cities. Once that is in place, commerce will also move away from just being in big cities like Colombo.
We weren’t comparing the US to SL; that would be apples and oranges. Nice try at moving the goalposts, but we were comparing the US to Europe, where I can assure you nothing like American inner city slums exist. Everything else you say about SL, (ie dosorganised housing plans, etc) is exactly my point — thanks for agreeing — it’s not overpopulation but bad planning and a lack of infrastructure. Everyone’s huddled into certain areas while most of the country is empty. If you want to abandon most of the country and exist just on 10% of the land (like in Australia or Canada), yes, you need a tiny population. But if you’re willing to develop the rest, you can support a larger population.
Your comment about European housing being “shite” is just subjective drivel. As I said, first go have a look. Clearly you haven’t. Bigger isn’t better. American cars are big, but they’re crap. No one wants ’em except lard-arsed Americans who can’t fit into anything else. As for most Americans having lots of space, that might be true if you live in Goat-Fuck, Montana or wherever, but it’s not true about cities like NY, SF, or even Canadian cities like Toronto. This sort of claim might work on people who don’t get out much, but I assure you I have.
There are far less Americans moving anywhere because most Americans think you can’t move anywhere without the 82nd Airborne. The fact is most Americans can’t speak anything but English (and even that is debatable). They can’t move anywhere but Canada and the UK.
Thanks also for confirming my point about Australians moving to the UK. Having space is useless if there’s bugger-all to do. Quality of life is dictated by jobs, careers, education, etc; not sitting around in a house you can no longer afford.
Lots of Europeans retire to Asia too, not just Australia. And Asia is densely populated. So your logic fails once more.
Now back to your claim about SL’s population density being the issue. Anything to add, or do you wanna just retreat further into ranting? :D
90% of Sri Lanka is not unpopulated. Stop making up crap. Only the middle bit of Australia is a dustbowl, the rest is beautiful habitable land, hundreds upon thousands of kilometres of open space (something that Sri Lanka does not have) And judging by the number of Sri Lankas who are desperate to live in Australia, and the refugees who make their way across thousands of miles, I would say a LOT of people want to live in the land down under.
Smaller town and villages? So you agree then that Sri Lankans will NEVER have the quality of life that the Americans/Canadians/Australians have. Go back and read what I have written from the start. You are the one who brought in Europe by bringing in Germany so it was you who changed the goalposts not me. Even if Sri Lanka develops the rest of the country there is still not enough land to provide a quality of life remotely similar to that which exists in the US/Aus/Canada. bascially, Sri Lanka is fucked because it has too many people on too little land. Difficult to accept, but it is the truth. What SL can aim for, however is something like in Singapore where the vast majority of people in live apartments and only the super rich own cars.
European housing IS shite. There is no two words about it. In comparision to the US or Canada or Aus they are substandard. A typical British house is a cramped shithole, you can cross the whole kitchen in like 2 strides. And the living room? Having a large flat screen tv is an issue because it won’t fit anyway, and you can’t buy them too big because you can’t sit far back enough to watch it properly! Reason? Not enough land. Any city centre is more densely populated but New York and Toronto have lovely, huge, sprawling suburbs – the sort that SL can never have because of the fact that it has way too many people on too little land.
Bigger IS better. American suburbs are better than any European ones. Their houses are better. Their movies are better. Their music is better. Even their culture is better, that is why most Europeans are desperate to learn English and become more American and/or visit or move to America. There are far less Americans moving to Europe because Europe is a shithole compared to the USA. The USA could bomb Europe into oblivion any day they wanted to. Heck the whole of Europe would fit deep into the USA. Americans do not need to go anywhere because they know they have a superior life to most Europeans.
And London may be a financial centre, but it is a shithole compared to Sydney or Perth.
Sri Lanka cannot even hope to compete.
All right boys, I think it’s time to get a room. Nobody’s going to change anybody’s mind here. There are numbers on this particular issue, but nevermind.
None of your above rant is anything to do with population density. The fact is most of SL is unpopulated, and unless you have an answer to why it cannot be populated, your overpopulation claim is nonsense. SL is no more overpopulated than Australia or Canada.
I brought up Germany as an example of how population density has nothing to do with quality of life. Personally, I prefer living in Europe to North America; you don’t. That’s just personal taste, and nothing to do with quality. I think American entertainment is bland and meaningless, their cars hardly better than Indian ones, their food unhealthy and boring, and their housing schemes wasteful and environmentally expensive. None of that has anything to do with SL’s ails, so you getting into a tizzy about whether the US is better or worse than Europe is just juvenile.
The point is most of SL is unpopulated, so only a retard would think that overpopulation is the issue here. The problem is bad management of the resources. It’s kindergarten stuff, Omr; why don’t you get it?