logo
Britain is squeezing its population out of existence

Britain is squeezing its population out of existence

Telegraph16-05-2025

This week, The Telegraph will be publishing a series of essays from experts on the demographic crisis facing much of the world, with falling birth rates and ageing populations seen across many regions. A list of published articles can be found below this one.
Imagine, briefly, that the Government proposed putting a chemical in the water. The chemical would have marvellous health effects for children, saving roughly 57 lives each year. At the same time, it would damage adults' fertility, leaving parents able to conceive 8,000 fewer children each year.
My guess is that most people would make a clear and obvious choice – we should give the 8,000 children a chance to be born, and their parents a chance to meet them. Any government that tried to pass such a regulation would be met with uproar.
Fortunately, there is no such chemical in your taps. But the idea isn't as hypothetical as you would think. It's just that rather than mandating something in the water, American states mandated something in their cars. Specifically, child car-seats.
Over the past 50 years, well-meaning legislators have steadily raised the age at which children need to sit in special seats when travelling in cars.
While it may sound sensible, the policy presents practical problems. In a standard car, fitting three child seats in the back is physically impossible. If you have two children and want to have a third, you either need a larger, more expensive car – or you need to wait until one child is old enough to sit unaided. And as a larger car is more expensive, parents may be forced to opt for the later choice.
The net effect of these laws, according to one study, has been to lower the probability that women who already have two children using car seats have a third child in a given year. The effect size is about 0.7 percentage points. Small but, added across the relevant regions of the United States, significant.
In 2017, the rules prevented around 57 child fatalities, and 8,000 births. In total, since 1980, an estimated 145,000 fewer children have been born in America as a result of these rules.
The car-seat prophylactic is a perfect metaphor for Western attitudes towards birth rates.
Having children is important, sure. And we'd ideally like to have some around to pay taxes in future, sustain the debt, look after us in our old age – and possibly carry the flame of the civilisation passed down to us by several thousand years of our ancestors scraping and scrabbling to build a society from dirt and rocks. But we have other priorities.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The shadow war raging in DC over Iran pits Donald Trump vs. Tulsi Gabbard: ‘They're kind of winging it any given hour'
The shadow war raging in DC over Iran pits Donald Trump vs. Tulsi Gabbard: ‘They're kind of winging it any given hour'

The Independent

time35 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The shadow war raging in DC over Iran pits Donald Trump vs. Tulsi Gabbard: ‘They're kind of winging it any given hour'

President Donald Trump's feud with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about whether Iran is crafting a nuclear weapon has led to Republicans explicitly siding with the president. The House of Representatives was out of session this week. But Senate Republicans, who are generally more hawkish than their House counterparts, have sided with Trump in terms of whether Iran is building a nuclear weapon. 'I trust President Trump,' Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Independent. 'He's undoubtedly correct.' Cornyn faces a primary challenge against a MAGA challenger in Texas Attorney General Paxton during next year's Republican primary and he voted to confirm Gabbard. In March, Gabbard told The House Intelligence Committee that the US Intelligence Community continued to 'assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon' and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had 'not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.' But Trump directly contradicted her when CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked him about her testimony earlier this week. 'I don't care what she said — I think they were very close to having one,' he said. Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, echoed Trump's words to The Independent. 'I'm just saying, listen to what the president said,' he said. Sen. Jim Justice of West Virginia also told The Independent that he trusted Trump. 'For God's sakes of living, they have told the whole world what they're wanting to do,' he said of Iran. 'They're wanting to eradicate Israel.' Gabbard represents a unique spot. A former four-term Democratic congresswoman who had endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016 and ran for president in 2020, she quit the party and in 2024, endorsed Trump. As a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard, Gabbard has criticized nation-building and military interventionism. Despite her previous criticisms of U.S. surveillance programs, she received almost unanimous consent from Senate Republicans, with the exception of former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky who has criticized the idea of war with Iran, did not want to comment about the split between Trump and Gabbard. 'I don't need to get in the middle of a fight between those two, I've made many pronouncements, you're welcome to use any of my quotes,' Paul told The Independent. Trump's split with Gabbard represents a larger contradiction between his campaign and his support for Israel. Despite his ardent support for Israel in his first presidency, Trump has criticized 'so-called 'nation-builders,' 'neocons,' or 'liberal non-profits.'' During his announcement for his 2024 campaign, he bragged about how he did not send the country into new wars and was ' the first president to do it for a long period.' But Israel's decision to conduct strikes on Iran and Trump's decision to fully support its efforts has led some of Trump's most devoted followers, including right-wing provocateur Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, to break with Trump. 'Clearly the Republicans are in a cat fight, because there's the wing of the party that clearly wants to do this and the clean wing of the party that clearly doesn't,' Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former CIA analyst, told The Indepndent. 'I don't know how much this is rooted in an intelligence conversation. I think they're kind of winging it any given day.' Gabbard was initially set to meet with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, criticized the the administration for contradicting the intelligence community. 'If this president wants to completely ignore the intelligence community, we are playing in dangerous ground, and this is exactly the way we got ourselves into Iraq,' he told The Independent.

Revealed: Experts discover trendy diet loved by millions no better than other weight loss plans
Revealed: Experts discover trendy diet loved by millions no better than other weight loss plans

Daily Mail​

time37 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Revealed: Experts discover trendy diet loved by millions no better than other weight loss plans

Intermittent fasting—a trendy eating pattern beloved by celebrities and A-listers—is no better than regular dieting, a major review has suggested. Hollywood stars like Jennifer Aniston, Nicole Kidman, Cameron Diaz and Mark Wahlberg have jumped on the trend since it shot to prominence in the early 2010s. It sees dieters cram all their meals into a strict daily time window, or in extreme examples, skip some entirely. But now, in a major review of data on the diet, a team of international researchers found the benefits from fasting were essentially 'trivial' compared to normal dieting. Neither eating meals in a specific time window—like in an eight hour period—or doing fasting for five days of the week and then eating normally for two were found to be any better for losing weight. In fact, alternate day fasting—where people fast for 24 hours on alternate days—was only found to help people lose more weight, with dieters slimming down 2.84lbs (1.29kg) more, on average. However, this difference didn't meet what the researchers said was the minimum clinical threshold of 4.4lbs (2kg). But they did say this type of intermittent fasting was found to lower cholesterol levels. Time restricted fasting, which involves a 16 hour fast followed by an eight-hour eating window, was found to slightly increase cholesterol levels. No benefit was found for blood sugar levels or 'good' cholesterol levels in any of the fasting diet strategies. In the study, researchers analysed the results of 99 randomised clinical trials involving 6,582 adults, aged 45 on average, to compare intermittent fasting with calorie reducing diets. Writing in the BMJ, the scientists said while their data suggested intermittent fasting was better for losing weight than not dieting at all, it didn't stand out compared to a basic calorie-counting diet. 'Minor differences were noted between some intermittent fasting diets and continuous energy restriction, with some benefit for an alternate day fasting strategy with weight loss in shorter duration trials,' they added. 'All intermittent fasting strategies and continuous energy restriction diets showed a reduction in body weight when compared with an ad-libitum diet (allowing yourself to eat at any time). 'Of three intermittent fasting diets alternate day fasting showed benefit in body weight reduction compared with continuous energy restriction.' Independent experts, not involved in the research, said the findings were unsurprising. Professor Naveed Sattar, an expert in cardiometabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow, said: 'Overall, the results do not surprise as there is nothing magical about intermittent fasting for weight loss—beyond being another way for people to lower their calorie intake. 'Whether it is sustainable over the longer term is worth examining. 'For those who need to lose much more weight, other options are now clearly available.' Meanwhile, Dr Amanda Avery, an expert in nutrition and dietetics at the University of Nottingham, added: 'The pros and cons of intermittent fasting have been debated for some time now. 'This review can hopefully end the debate with the conclusion that if someone chooses intermittent fasting and overall a nutritionally balanced diet is still achieved, then it could be used as one of the options to support weight loss.' Experts have long been divided over the effectiveness of intermittent fasting as well as its potential long term health impacts. Some have even warned that it may raise the risk of strokes, heart attacks or early death. One study earlier this year also suggested intermittent fasting could trigger type two diabetes. Around two in three adults in the UK are obese or overweight, giving the country one of the highest obesity rates in Europe. Obesity itself increases the chances of person suffering serious health conditions that can damage the heart, such as high blood pressure. Last year, a sobering report also suggested Britain's spiralling obesity levels have fuelled a staggering 39 per cent rise in type 2 diabetes among people under 40, with 168,000 Brits now living with the illness. Piling on the pounds has also been linked to at least 13 types of cancer and is the second biggest cause of the disease in the UK, according to Cancer Research UK.

Ted Cruz gives even wilder justification for his Israel support in new Tucker Carlson clip
Ted Cruz gives even wilder justification for his Israel support in new Tucker Carlson clip

Daily Mail​

time37 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Ted Cruz gives even wilder justification for his Israel support in new Tucker Carlson clip

Senator Ted Cruz is backing Israel wholeheartedly in its war against Iran because of a passage in the Bible which tells Christians 'those who bless Israel will be blessed.' In a heated back-and-forth with former Fox firebrand Tucker Carlson, Cruz attempted to justify why he has been calling for Trump to help overthrow the Iranian regime amid increasing anxiety over America's involvement in conflict in the Middle East. 'Growing up in Sunday school I was taught from the Bible, those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he told Carlson. Carlson had repeatedly humiliated Cruz with a series of 'gotcha' questions during the sit-down, which earlier culminated in a jaw dropping revelation from the politician that America was directly involved in 'carrying out military strikes' on Iran. And Carlson again capitalized when Cruz began addressing theology, asking Cruz exactly where in the Bible was the verse he referenced. 'I can find it,' Cruz said. 'I don't have the scripture off the tip of my...' he said, urging Carlson to 'pull out [his] phone' to search for it. 'It's in Genesis,' Carlson said. 'You're quoting a Bible phrase you don't have context for, you don't know where in the Bible it is... that's your theology?' Carlson continued, asking Cruz to clarify whether the Bible called for 'blessing the government of Israel.' 'I'm a Christian,' he said. 'I want to know what you're talking about... I'm confused.' Cruz doubled down, explaining: 'Where does my support for Israel come from? Number one, because biblically we are commanded to support Israel... It doesn't say the government of Israel, it says the nation of Israel. So that's in the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that.' Tensions escalated as the two men spoke over the top of one another and Carlson said: 'Hold on, you're a senator and now you're throwing out theology. I'm a Christian and I'm allowed to weigh in on this. 'We're commanded as Christians to support the government of Israel? Define Israel. This is important. Are you kidding? This is a majority Christian country.' Cruz hit back: 'Define Israel? Do you not know what Israel is? That would be the country you've asked like 49 questions about.' 'So that's what Genesis - that's what God is talking about?' Carlson said. 'Is that the current borders, the current leadership, he's talking about the political entity of Israel. 'Is the nation God is referring to in Genesis the same country Benjamin Netanyahu is running now?' Carlson has made no secret of his disdain for Trump 'abandoning his America First policies' amid the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. His position on the conflict has put him at odds with the president, who is locked in tense crisis talks with his inner circle as he debates ramping up US involvement in the conflict. Cruz's statement that America has been 'carrying out military strikes' already was a major departure from everything the Trump administration had said about US involvement up until this stage - a point that was not lost on Carlson. 'You said Israel was [carrying out strikes],' Carlson said, to which Cruz responded: 'I've said we. Israel is leading them, but we're supporting them.' 'You're breaking news here,' Carlson said. 'The US government last night denied... on behalf of Trump, that we're acting on Israel's behalf in any offensive capacity.' Cruz appeared to backpedal on his statement, then telling Carlson: 'No, we're not bombing them. Israel is bombing them.' Carlson said: 'You just said we were. This is high stakes. You're a senator. If you're saying the United States is at war with Iran right now, people are listening.' The conservative commentator's earlier line of questioning had put Cruz under pressure and highlighted just how little he knows about the region. 'How many people live in Iran, by the way?' Carlson had asked. 'I don't know the population,' Cruz accepted, much to Carlson's horror as he quipped: 'At all?' 'You don't know the population of the people you're trying to topple?' Carlson added. Cruz tried to turn the tables back on Carlson, asking him for the number, to which the podcast host immediately responded: '92 million.' 'How could you not know that?' Carlson said. 'It's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.' By this stage, the men were shouting over the top of one another as Cruz frantically tried to defend himself, first arguing 'I don't sit around memorizing population tables', before adding: 'Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million.' Carlson, who appeared incredulous at the question, began to explain why he found it important 'if you don't know anything about the country', but was cut off by Cruz who said: 'I didn't say I don't know anything about Iran.' 'Okay,' Carlson countered, 'what is the ethnic mix of Iran?' Cruz stumbled over his answer, naming Persians and 'predominately Shia' before he was cut off by Carlson, who said again: 'What percent? You don't know anything on Iran.' Finally Cruz cracked, shouting: 'Okay, I'm not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran.' Carlson said: 'You're the Senator who is calling for the overthrow of the government and you don't know anything about the country.' Both Israel and Iran launched fresh strikes at each other overnight, as Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it launched a 'more powerful' new wave of missiles at Israel. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned: 'The battle begins... We will show the Zionists no mercy.' Trump and Carlson have had a high-profile falling out amid Carlson's public criticism of the assault on Iran. Trump wrote Monday night on Truth social: 'Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that,' IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!' Earlier in the day, he said: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store