Britain’s population is booming! So much so, Sir Keir Starmer has now pledged to build 1.5 million homes across the nation in order to house us all. But where will he get the workers needed to actually make such a vast number of structures? According to an unnamed “Government source” quoted in the Times recently, “There are only two ways to meet that pledge – either illegal workers, or an influx of [legal] foreign workers.” So, we need foreigners to build all those houses to hold our growing population. But where is our growing population itself actually coming from? Also from foreigners.
Based upon official data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the Spectator last week ran the following graphic, demonstrating that 31.8% of all U.K. births in 2023 came from foreign-born mothers:

Without mass immigration, Britain’s population would be falling, not increasing. So, who are these foreign builders actually building houses for? Themselves and other new arrivals.
Labour shortages are so great in the industry that, already, unemployed migrants, particularly of the illegal sort, are gathering around outside building sites unprompted, on the plausible prospect of being hired, cash-in-hand, for a day’s illicit work, some of whom are effectively ‘modern slaves’. According to the Considerate Constructors Scheme trade-body, however, there is a severe potential problem: many such illegal migrant workers will not actually be capable or qualified to do the job asked of them.
This, as far as I can tell, is the Labour Government’s current logic: we need to mass import more immigrants to build houses, otherwise there won’t be enough houses to house them all.
There’s No Longer One Born Every Minute
I suppose Labour has to try something to stop our population’s seemingly inexorable march towards numerical extinction. The minimum replacement number of babies each woman in any given nation needs to have merely to ensure maintenance of the country’s present population size is 2.1; yet a report from the ONS in October revealed that Britain’s current woeful fertility rate is only 1.44 babies per woman. The ONS warned Britain was full of numerous even lower-fertility ‘baby deserts’, like Brighton, which has a mere 0.98 babies per female, most potential mothers there doubtless being ‘female’ only on a medical certificate. In the 1960s, British women squeezed out 182 infants per 1,000 females, compared to only 39 today.
The U.K. is not alone. In East Asia – particularly Japan and South Korea – the situation is far worse. Contrary to popular perception, birth-rates are even trending downwards in the Middle East, India and South America, albeit nowhere near as low as they are here yet. Another 2024 study in medical journal the Lancet predicts the total global population will soon fall for the first time since the Black Death, estimating that, by 2100, a mere six nations will still have birth-rates above replacement level.
Never mind Net Zero, humanity is heading towards ‘net mortality’ on a colossal scale. Pro-natalist Elon Musk, who has so many children himself he can no longer even give them real names, just serial numbers, has called this “a much bigger risk to civilisation than global warming”, although, to be fair, so are most things, really.
A new book, The Age of Decay: How Ageing and Shrinking Populations Could Usher In the Decline of Civilisation by South African investment analyst Shamil Ismail, contends that most of the world currently has no future for people like him to invest in at all – the sole exception being sub-Saharan Africa, the only place on the planet likely to maintain significantly above-replacement birth-rates over the coming century. By 2100, Ismail guesses, Africa’s population will increase from 1.3 billion to 3.9 billion, allowing this to become “The African Century”; current figures suggest a rate of 4.3 births per woman in Africa, although even this is down 35% since the 1970s when it stood at 6.8.
There are a number of possibilities for how this could all pan out. In the immediate term, these teeming African millions may be heading westwards or eastwards to build themselves unsafe houses on European, American, Japanese and Korean building sites, but in the long-term, as occidental and oriental labour-shortages grow ever worse due to white and Asian women sealing their wombs up forever with Gorilla Glue, the Third Worlders may be able to charge higher wages as demand for their ‘skills’ grows.
Those societies unable to afford to outbid their equally depopulated First World competitors for newly expensive black labour, says Ismail, will begin to decay and crumble due to lack of essential melanised maintenance staff needed to keep society running. White Westerners and East Asians having become soft and overeducated, elite over-production in our universities has raised an effete generation who think themselves somehow ‘above’ being plumbers, binmen, prostitutes or delivery drivers, leaving everywhere to decline into a sorry, dilapidated and depopulated state akin to that of present-day post-industrialised Detroit – No-Town, not Motown.
But, even if we do manage to entice millions of fertile Kenyans over here to drive our vans and shine our shoes by offering them wages of £500,000 per annum and as many free yams as they can swallow, won’t this ultimately just prove a demographic Ponzi Scheme? Recent research on Bill Cosby has proved beyond dispute that black men may sometimes get old and sick too, and data suggest that, over time, many immigrants adapt their own birth-rates downwards to converge with those of their low-breeding host populations, leaving us back at square one, baby-wise.
Not Bringing Up Baby
Nobody is entirely sure what has caused all this, conjectures ranging from the influence of radical feminism to the decline of religion and (non-gay) marriage, to the easy availability of contraception and abortion, to the sheer cost of raising a family these days.
It may simply be that, being a social species, humans like to mimetically ape the actions of those around them. The more people we see having no kids, the more socially acceptable this seems as a lifestyle choice, and the more likely we are to follow suit, whereas in the past, when most had large families, not doing so made you seem more of a gingerbread house weirdo. Now, childlessness – and even self-marriage, or ‘sologamy’ – can seem like an aspirational lifestyle choice.
Most pathological are the strange ideological reasons some Westerners today give for intentionally remaining barren, such as the neurotic young birth-strikers who claim they’re keeping their knees crossed to save the planet. The Daily Sceptic recently carried news of a Lysistrata-like sex strike on the part of emotionally disturbed liberal U.S. female voters called the ‘4B Movement’ who vowed to deny men access to their gametes following Donald Trump’s victory in the Presidential election. They seemingly thought the only real issue on the board during the vote was abortion, or ‘bodily autonomy’ and ‘reproductive freedom’ – in other words, if they think they can’t have an abortion under Trump, they’re not going to get pregnant in the first place, even though they don’t want to get pregnant, so much so they would have an abortion if they did. Such is today’s liberal logic.
Observe the following truly unhinged Instagram post from 4B activist Lydia Ravens, made the day after Donald’s victory, in which she commands her followers to commit suicide before they agree to bear offspring (“And [if] they try to force us… the Kool-Aid is the answer.”):

It’s often said these days that the West has some kind of subliminal death wish. Now it’s proudly out there in the actual open: demographic Kool-Aid, that’s the drink of choice for these blue-dyed acolytes of the post-Biden Left. 2B or not 2B? If you’re a 4B, it’s definitely the latter.
Miserable Les
Western Leftists have been engaging in similar politicised pubic pledges upon bizarre ideological, ecological and identitarian grounds for decades now. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) was founded in 1991 by Les Knight, an American supply-teacher who had his vas deferens snipped in 1973 to help put an end to “reproductive fascism”, which he defines as “the lack of freedom not to procreate” – a “lack of freedom” which demonstrably does not exist.
Knight considers humankind a plague upon the planet, and thinks we should all willingly stop breeding and die out to save the pandas (who, ironically, are currently doing rather the same thing themselves – maybe they’re somehow trying to save us?) “We’re not a good species,” Les told an approving New York Times climate reporter in 2022, “I don’t think the whales will miss our songs.”
They might miss Les’s unique brand of inverted reason, though. Strangely for such a committed anti-natalist, Knight seems to be simultaneously anti-abortion, unlike the hysterical 4B women of 2024, arguing one of the many moral benefits of there being no more babies being born is that no more babies will therefore be being killed in the womb by expectant mothers, either; shades of the professor I wrote about on this site recently arguing that if we didn’t let people commit suicide they might just kill themselves.
Here’s one of VHEMT’s logos, as featured in Knight’s old newsletter, These Exit Times:

Clearly, humans are now meant to go the way of the dodos and the dinosaurs for our own good. But what is the best method for us all to do so? How about lashings of gay sex?
Go Gay for Gaia!
Look at this demented essay by one G. Roger Denson in the online Huffington Post newspaper, in which he argues that, now gays have been widely accepted as having equal rights in marriage, all they need to complete their full existential “self-image” is to develop a key “reason for being” akin to that of heterosexuals having children – namely, not to have children, a core biological function that Denson says “makes being homosexual essential to the balance of Nature”.
The fact that more and more people are choosing to go gay these days, theorises Denson, represents Nature’s best Malthusian efforts to prevent overpopulation that causes climate-change. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more queers will consequently appear to prevent the appearance of excessive numbers of future polluting hetero-babies, thus restoring ecological equilibrium – homo-homeostasis.
Of gays like him, Denson declared: “We preserve the species. We are conservation realised. We provide nature’s… restraint… on procreative extravagance. We keep human production from becoming… overproduction… pollution… destruction unbridled. We keep the human race from becoming… an obscene cosmic joke.”
Although admitting there was not yet any proven “causal link established between homosexuality and population management”, Denson argued gay sex was nonetheless still somehow “essential to the balance of life” as, “given what we know about natural selection as an eminently versatile response to environmental endangerment, and what we know about the genome’s metabolic adaptability, it follows that humans over generations would develop [such] a mechanism within them to check and balance procreative extravagance”. Why were the ancient Greeks so famously keen on the habit, then? They didn’t have any dangerous coal-fired power-stations or internal combustion engines that needed to be put an end to by proliferating homosexuals, did they?
Denson maintains that an immediate global wave of “unrestrained homosexuality” was needed to save the planet, something which should become embedded within Government policy to “the point that the world’s nations come to encourage its practice and esteem its benefits… [as] the most harmonious way to control the population.”
If you want to see what a real queer anti-natal extremist activist looks like, meanwhile, read this previous piece of mine about the Australian academic-cum-occultist Patricia MacCormack, a weird Goth “vegan witch” and proud “species traitor” who appears to have been funded by the British state to write mad university textbooks encouraging cannibalism, necrophilia and sodomy as excellent means of depopulating the planet, along with the use of human corpses as non-polluting eco-friendly fuel. (Even though humans, too, are carbon-based entities, just like coal…)
Who’d want to bring a child into a world that has nutters like these in it? We can’t allow ourselves to think like that, though, otherwise we’ll just let them win. Or, on the other hand, is their long-term defeat in fact ironically made rather certain by virtue of their own extremist anti-reproductive message and tendencies? Hopefully, this could all turn out to be the very definition of a self-correcting problem.
Steven Tucker is a journalist and the author of over 10 books, the latest being Hitler’s & Stalin’s Misuse of Science: When Science Fiction Was Turned Into Science Fact by the Nazis and the Soviets (Pen & Sword/Frontline), which is out now.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We should have a reasoned debate about this. Unfortunately population size, assisted suicide, Net Zero, abortion, capital punishment are all ‘hot topics’ and immediately result in strongly polarised debates. Which cannot enlighten or be resolved.
The undeniable fact is that the cause of birthrates falling steadily over the decades in the West is multifactorial. It just isn’t possible to pinpoint one convenient cause for what’s happening, therefore I think it’s bound to be nigh on impossible to remedy. Perhaps things may improve a bit ( being massively optimistic here going by the state of our societies across the Western world ) but if people think they’re going to see birthrates like the 1960s and prior to that again they’re in Cloud Cuckoo Land. Social norms have changed and we’re never going back, reproduction rate is only one aspect of this.
One thing that I’m confident I can point to as a cause though, and Steven’s article just rams that home with only a few examples, is that there is a hell of a lot more people demonstrably suffering mental health problems now than decades ago. I’d bet money, though I don’t have the research to hand, that if you compared the amount of people ( adults and kids ) on record as having psychiatric disorders or who are on psych meds, say, from the 1960s to the present year, you’re very likely to see an upward trend.
They just didn’t have all these nutbars forming groups and running around making nuisances of themselves like we have now. People didn’t want to mutilate their bodies and sterilize themselves because they were convinced they were born in the wrong body, and society affirmed and encouraged that. The way many go on now would’ve seen them sectioned and put away before you could cry ”freedom of expression!”, I’ve no doubt, because they’d have been looked on as sick in the head and many, as described above, most certainly are, but they’re all to be tolerated now and we must coexist with these nutjobs.
Talking of nutjobs, here’s another example. Honestly, I continue to cringe and despair, I am that ashamed of members of my own sex. It’s not only that people are advocating for the rights of paedophiles, it’s *women* advocating for the normalization of this abhorrent noncery. What do you do with people this dysfunctional and mental?? The way I see it, these are definitely examples of people I’d rather didn’t have babies!
”Scholars say pedophilia is now a sexual orientation that must be accepted by society, as pedophiliacs have feelings too.”
https://x.com/UltraDane/status/1856431394144301572
OT, but baby-related – the next scandal?
https://joannenova.com.au/2024/11/lets-spend-200m-on-an-rsv-vaccine-for-babies-but-nothing-on-low-vitamin-d-which-dramatically-increases-risks/
There’s only so much family-friendly government policies can do to encourage an increase in birthrates, as even countries such as Poland and Hungary have discovered. It would be useful if there were some recent research whereby people who are child-free are actually surveyed and asked the reasons why they have opted out ( or perhaps delaying ) of having children, rather than relying on speculation;
”Hungary’s birthrate outperforms a number of neighboring states, such as Poland. In 2023, Hungary’s birth rate was 1.52 compared to Poland’s record low below 1.2.
Most of the new babies in Hungary are born to ethnic Hungarians, whereas many of the children born in Western European countries are born to foreigners. In countries like France, where the rate is above 1.7, experts believe that ethnic French are between 1 and 1.2.
In order to replace the population, a rate of 2.1 is required.
Hungary’s child benefits have no doubt helped boost the birthrate, but to what degree is hard to tease out. Hungarians still face pressure from lower wages and high housing prices, even if there is government support in those areas for those who choose to have children. In addition, Hungary is subject to the same cultural and modernity factors that have fueled a drop in children being born across the developed world.
Hungary has been unable to achieve this goal, but no other European country has managed to either in recent decades, with the exception of the Faroe Islands. In fact, Europe has experienced a record low birth rate as of last year, and experts expect this trend to only accelerate in the coming years, as the pool of women able to give birth shrinks.”
https://rmx.news/article/hungary-has-increased-family-benefits-for-14-years-in-a-row-but-is-it-working/
I think in extremely simple solution would be to halt state subsidies for childlessness. This would arguably leave us in a situation more close to the not-so-distant past where rich people can screw around as it damn well pleases them while poorer people would need to take the likely consequences of their own actions into account but this wouldn’t be the worst thing to do. Certainly, Alexander Rogers would still be alive if he had been born into a world were sex wasn’t just a commodity entertainment for the intoxicated.
Are these activists against apple pie too?
For me it makes sense.
The majority of the developed world is in the grips of a death cult.
Let’s look at a few of them:
Net zero – humans are destroying the planet, they are the problem.
LGBTQ: being gay is not exactly conducive to reproduction
Feminism: my body, my choice. Shout your abortion. Men are scum.
Corporates: we’ll pay women to freeze their eggs. More women into the workplace!
Trans: chemical and surgical castration.
This is not my observation but I think it’s true: any culture that loses its spiritual roots (and post-Christianity Europe certainly has) will invariably get trapped in a death spiral, effectively committing suicide. Within a few generations it is gone.
People like the Amish – they will survive.
It’s a complex issue isn’t it. I suppose if your community traditions disintegrate (e.g. dad going to work, mum staying at home), and you are exposed to alternative life styles and philosophies, then bearing babies as your obvious future, is but one of a number of options. Women (in developed countries) have many more opportunities available to them, and are no longer bound to the idea that their future is one of raising a family.
Of course, many women do want to raise a family, but money is often an issue. But the government is not interested in encouraging large families, and will not provide the financial support.
I guess part of the solution is to make child bearing an attractive option for those demographics who are shunning it, may be even a duty, although, I am not generally favour of coercion or bullying.
I just think one obvious starting point is to actually ask these people in their reproductive years why they’re not having kids, but also part of that research could be finding out what might change their minds or things the governments could do to improve things for people in this situation. Without knowing for sure the ‘why’ how can things be changed for the better? But as other countries have shown, it’s about so much more than government policies. Even in somewhere like Hungary, which hasn’t been blighted with mass immigration and ( as far as I can tell ) the woke mind virus, as much as other European/Western countries.
And people have to have realistic expectations because we’re never going back to the ’50s, when life was very much governed by social conventions.
How many gay people do you think lived a life of misery, putting on a front and pretending to be what society expected of them? Married with kids, all the while depressed and struggling because they couldn’t be their true selves or they’d be ostracised and taken down the funny farm? Women stuck in dreary, loveless marriages of convenience, financially dependent on a man who was a domestic abuser because women didn’t live independently in those days, and unless you were a widow or a nun it was all about keeping up appearances and “what would the neighbours think?”. Women couldn’t just walk out of an abusive relationship like they can now. So I think social convention, pressure and societal norms dictated an awful lot decades ago and now nobody would bat an eyelid if same sex couples lived together or a woman on her own or a couple without kids lived down the road.
But nobody should be guilted, bribed or pressured into having kids, and their decisions are entirely their own business and nobody else’s. Nobody should have to defend what is a very personal choice or be judged on that basis. You mention “many women do not want to raise a family” but it’s remiss of you to not mention that many *men* do not want kids either. Yes, people who do not possess a maternal or paternal instinct do in fact exist, but years ago they wouldn’t have a choice in the matter. I’d much rather people bring kids into the world that are genuinely wanted because feeling unloved, resented and like you’re some sort of inconvenience is pretty flipping miserable.
In the ’70s my mam got pregnant with me out of wedlock. She was only 18yrs and the boy wouldn’t marry her so my nana and grandad sent her to the neighbouring city to one of those homes so unmarried women could give birth to their illegitimate babies and then they’d be put up for adoption. These places were common back then. So how many couples had to marry, not out of love, but because social convention dictated that it be so, because single mothers were shamed and looked down on years ago, especially as contraception wasn’t nearly as readily available as it is now?
So I think this topic is a lot more complex than people seem to think because the world’s a different place now and what’s so wrong with aspiring to something more than just baking cakes, keeping house and popping out babies? We are all individuals, after all.
You’ve made some good points, highlighting the moral and practical difficulties around this (the story of your grandparents and mother, is a distressing one).
People of course, change their minds about matters, and before you know it, a whole new set of values has organically appeared, up ending the previous state of affairs. I expect something similar will occur with the birthrate, and for reasons that we won’t be able to fathom, the birthrate will start to increase.
If we also factor in such things as marital rape only becoming a criminal offence as recently as 1992 ( women had to just lie back and think of England, didn’t they, as they performed their “wifely duties”. ) and being an active homosexual man decriminalised in the late 1960s in the UK ( though I’m pretty sure social stigma meant men weren’t exactly rushing out the closet in their droves for some years thereafter ), then also the lack of contraceptives and availability of safe abortions, coupled with how social convention, attitudes to women and the opportunities available to them, and traditional culture all were decades ago you can see how people had many more children than they do now. It really is an inevitability that we’d be seeing less babies born in our culture compared with, say, the Islamic culture, which really hasn’t evolved for 1400 years, females are subjugated and are duty bound to breed. Such is the contrast in two cultures that really are at odds with each other.
Of course, I could take orthodox Jews and Catholics also as an example as they have lots of kids typically.
Yes, people who do not possess a maternal or paternal instinct do in fact exist, but years ago they wouldn’t have a choice in the matter.
They’re forced to have sex with persons of the opposite sex? How so?
A person can have a sex drive independent of wanting to make babies you know? But any babies made as a result of normal people with a healthy sex drive having sex, especially given condoms and female contraception didn’t exist or weren’t widely available decades ago, meant that the female had to either get married off, to the ‘father’ or other ‘willing to take on another’s child man’ or she’d get packed off to one of these homes, as my mother did, because a single mother and illegitimate baby brought great shame to many uptight families, such were the societal norms then. Sex before marriage was frowned upon which is why certain ‘accidents’ came about, but humans being human, these things happened, of course. Unless you went off to join a convent…
This nevertheless leaves them with a choice in the matter, as nobody’s going to die because of not having sex outside of a stable relationship which can accomodate children should they occur¹.
¹ A former female acquaintance of mine once chose to have a sex drive together with a Neonazi recently released from prison. Unfortunately, chemical contraceptives aren’t 100% reliable, hence, she found herself in a situation he could (and did) walk away from, thanks to this being considered socially acceptable in our modern paradise of irresponsibility.
Well I don’t think it’s realistic to expect people to be celebate just because they’re not in a relationship. If consenting adults wish to get it on for a bit of casual sex here and there then who are we to argue? It’s their business, nobody else’s. Plus, I’d say ‘no strings’ sex is perfectly normal when you’re young, free and just embarking on your sexual adventures. Just make sure it’s safe, which is the main thing.
At the very least, those consenting adults ought to pay for their own “casual entertainment” instead of expecting the NHS to take care of that. Children are not a disease and the health service shouldn’t be responsible for preventing them. Then, it would indeed be their business and nobody else’s. At least superficially so. When the usual “we need loads of immigrants from alien culture to work around ‘demographic change'” argument comes into play, the issue gains a different perspective.
That’s even more true when considering something like the German pension system: Pensions for the current generation of pensioners are paid from the money paid in by the members of the current working generation. Once these reach retirement age, they’ll receive pensions coming from the payment of the people who’ll be working then. German state pensions were originally only meant to be poor relief. This was changed in the 1950s and the German then-chancellor (Adenauer) brushed concerns about how to pay for that away with the famouse quote “People will always get children.” Except that they nowadays usually don’t.
Pulling this together means I have to pay for the entertainment of those consenting adults and in return for that, my retirement age gets pushed closer to the statistic life expectancy for members of my generation because not enough actually working people can be imported from foreign countries to make up for the long term side effects of the short-term side-effect-freeness of this consenting adults pasttime.
Lastly, there’s the issue I mentioned: People like the Neonazi I mentioned (or, for that matter, Andrew Tate) can have loads of casual sex with all kinds of women and in case something goes wrong with that, well, that’s a problem for the woman, innit?
This picture is not as simple and rosy as you had painted it.
Anti Baby Means Anti Human
If we can’t have the future the way we want it, then no one will have it!
The very essence of a sociopath!
And their badge “f@%k Trump” shouldn’t that read “Don’t f£#k, because of Trump?
“F#^k Trump, not me!”?