‘Strictly ecologically seen passenger in the Netherlands only 1 of 2 million people’
The consequences of humans on the planet are carried out. We are thinking about solutions to reduce our environmental impact. Windmills, reducing consumption, no longer flying – all kinds of things are discussed. According to OverBevolking Foundation, the remedy is much less people daily.
It is not a popular message that the OverBevolking Foundation proclaims: too many people live in the Netherlands – and in the rest of the world. ‘Strictly from an ecological point of view, the Netherlands could only have one of two million people’, says Jan van Weeren (75), secretary of the society. But those numbers can fluctuate. The moment we go greener, a lot more people can join.’
It is striking that Van Weeren talks about greening. Until recently, the OverBevolking Foundation was known as De Club Van Tien Miljoen. Founder and spirit of De Club, Paul Gerbrands, gave to know to share the climate position of the Forum for Democracy. In other words: there is no question of a ‘made by humans’ climate crisis, the climate is always changing.
Gerbrands stepped down in 2019 and the name changed to Stichting OverBevolking. A specific role in the ideas is a prominent role in the ideas. The aim is to achieve an autarkic view of the climate neutral Netherlands – but that is not possible with so many people in the country. Birth control is preached, so is the paralysis of immigration. As a result, the organization quickly becomes a right-wing corner, Van Weeren notices. He doesn’t think that’s right.
Paralyzing immigration is also a right-wing idea, isn’t it?
‘That way you can move forward. You can also say that every migrant in the Netherlands, from someone from the former Eastern Bloc in a slaughterhouse, increases the ecological footprint of the Netherlands. They continue to live here and receive family. So you get a population growth of about 100,000 people every year. That is a city the size of Alkmaar van Leeuwarden. And they are going to live just like us. That is a huge increase in our ecological footprint.’
I think that a Polish migrant worker who works in a slaughterhouse does not have the same standard of living as you or I.
“No, but he’s aiming for it.”
Polish migrant workers are often brought to the Netherlands to do work that the average Dutch person does not want to do. Isn’t it right that we consume too much?
‘Because we are increasing in numbers, it’s a bit of mopping with the tap open. But I certainly admit that if we reduce our consumption pattern, we are on the right track. That means meeting a bit in a society of Tibetan goals, that we still achieve a little in a society of Tibetan goals. Use the car less, no more plane trips, eat less meat. Unfortunately, that’s why you don’t red it. You have to go back in your consumption pattern; many people don’t want to bring that bidding.’
Fewer people are therefore the solution according to you. If you make that concrete: how do you ensure it?
‘In the first population surplus you have to make sure that the population of a country with a first population surplus does not start through immigration instead. You have to see strength in the people you let in, not in the big business that wants new consumers. You will accept that it goes along with economic contraction. The second step is taking care of the nanny for children. The moment you have a child, you will receive child benefit. You will be supported financially and fiscally. You can say that the government should not encourage this in times of surplus.’
So abolish child benefit?
‘Of the nuance. That you receive child benefit for one child, not for two, and for a third child you have to pay an environmental tax. Because you’re going to be someone who, under these circumstances, puts a heavy burden on the future and sustainability of our country.’
Isn’t that a disastrous idea? There is an aging population and fewer people are joining. It is young generations who then have to bear enormous burdens.
‘That’s not much of a problem. In every society you have to deal with people who provide income and people who are dependent. When you have a lot of young people, like in African countries, you have a lot of dependents that need to be maintained. The difference is with us. We have many elderly people to care for, and few children to care for. You can create all kinds of scenarios for development, but the number of people who depend on other people is a fairly constant ratio.’
Isn’t that changing a lot because of the baby boom? More and more people need care.
‘If you look at 2050, you’re at the peak of the baby boom – then it levels out again. It’s a temporary bubble.’
But for elderly care you need young people. If there aren’t enough of those, don’t you need migration to straighten it out?
‘That is not the case. Most importantly, we approach the ecological balance. That means we have to work with the belts we have to develop to recruit on the short-term workforce. Those immigrants also get old at some point, so you get a peak again.’
‘If you want to keep the business sustainable, you have to ensure that the people who are poor now remain poor’
It is predicted that by the end of this century there will probably be one billion more Africans. Isn’t going back to ten million people in the Netherlands small beer?
‘That’s definitely true. It is said: there is talk of a fairer distribution when we get there, fewer children will be born in Africa, because they don’t have to work on the land. There are other livelihoods. The problem is that very few people live in prosperity on Earth. There are only half a billion of them: they have a decent income, who can drive a car or take a plane trip. The rest have it less, that is seven billion people. But if those seven billion people go more, achieve more prosperity, then they will put enormous pressure on the earth. So if you want to keep the business sustainable, you have to ensure that the people who are poor now remain poor.’
Are you serious?
‘It cannot be arranged in any other way. Because consumption, no matter how green, always goes with environmental pollution and emissions.
This is not what I expect to hear beforehand: poor people should stay poor.
‘If you go for a sustainable earth, that is the solution given the current population numbers.’
Isn’t it fairer to level per capita emissions worldwide and bet on a green world?
“Research found that even if the whole world is leveled to Egypt’s wealth level of Indonesia, we can’t continue. Even if you level up and go very much back in the West in favor of those less fortunate, you’re still left with too many people on Earth. The moment you want to change things here, you get so much resistance – it just doesn’t work. So if you don’t use that, you’re left with the conclusion that poor people should just stay poor.’
What about birth control in your plea?
You have those beautiful euphemisms, such as accessibility of contraceptives. Many women do not have access to modern contraception. It’s a euphemism for a culture that simply forbids women to take the lead and decide how many children they want. You have strong patriarchs and misconceptions to make: if you take the pill, you will become fat or unhealthy. You can make sure that modern contraceptives are available, that’s one thing, but you’ll have to do a lot of education to dispel misconceptions. And on the other hand, you will break through patriarchalism, that the man determines how children are born and that his prestige depends on how many children he has brought into the world.’
Is that also how population growth in Africa would hold back?
‘You have to get leaders along with that, that’s a must. You could set up some little clinic there and try to get people there and then have them use contraceptives along with a reward. That does not work. At some point you will need to have a local leader who sees something in it and is committed to it. Then the population will join in, then information and things like that will have an effect. So if you don’t get that collaboration, it’s often wasted effort.’
Isn’t that just neo-colonialism, telling other countries contraception?
“It’s only in their own interest. The moment they do nothing further about the fertility rate, the situation will become more miserable. And then at some point, mother jet grabs food aid to survive. Overpopulation in those countries is of course very different from ours. Here it is simply a lack of space and housing, but there it is a matter of survival. The moment you have too many young people there and no means of support, then you get wars and eventually that results in massive deaths from lack of food and water.’
‘Let human rights and a generous asylum policy prevail over the population, climate and environmental crisis: there is no room for that anymore’
Don’t you think your ideas fuel xenophobia and racism?
“I think you should distance yourself from that.”
I get that, but don’t you think this kind of rhetoric makes the ‘Other’ come to be seen as the problem? Although I don’t think that’s right.
That is up to the point. I’m not that if you put this in a bigger perspective, that it has anything to do with racism of something that has anything like that. That is of course the case when it becomes smaller. Here in the Netherlands, the overload is caused by labor migration, not by refugees. Refugees are dwarfed by the footprint that other immigrants add. The moment you use the word ‘immigration’, everyone immediately thinks of poor hand holders from other countries, who are going to tax our social security system. That’s an automatic switch that flips, it gets a signal charge. Because you see it in too small a perspective.’
What should you do with refugees if you want to reduce the population here?
‘I don’t think you can record them. A refugee is threatened, he puts a change aside and goes where no one has the last of living violence. At the moment we are dealing with refugees who have traveled enormous distances – not to escape violence and misery, but to get a better life. When Germany invaded Belgium in the First World War, a whole Belgian population crossed the border and they were safe. They were on neutral territory. Now it is as if those Belgians will go to the Bahamas. Huge distances are covered, not reached to save oneself but to start a new life.’
Isn’t that urge for a better life very human? The slogan of your foundation is ‘More people with fewer people’, which sounds very humane. I miss that mercy today.
‘It is a luxury we can no longer afford; human rights and a generous asylum policy to take precedence over the population, climate and environmental crisis we now find ourselves in. There’s no room for that anymore.’
Isn’t all this easy for you to talk about? You are a retired, wealthy white gentleman. The issues that affect previous generations and immigrants.
‘Of course, sure. I am very privileged. But that doesn’t mean what I’m saying originated is colored, or that it can’t have a general guideline.”
Good journalism costs money. Members and donations enable our balanced coverage of biculturalism, meaning and freedom. So support us if you think our work is important.
Tell me more!