Unwilling to accept and rebut criticism is usually a pretty bad sign, yes.

In this posting I am linking to your photo, not copying it.  This is allowed without permission by the standards of the internet and "Fair Use" in copyright law.

When I requested permission, it was to copy a photo for use in a book to be sold, which requires permission according to copyright law.  I received an email from Roxanne Meadows (tvp@thevenusproject.com) on October 29th, 2003, stating:

"Dear Patri,Thank you for confirming the use of our photo within your paper. We would prefer that you inquire about your doubts to perhaps understand our direction in more depth and help bridge the differences about our economic proposal before you print "While we are a bit suspicious of their economictheories."  If this is left in your description of our project beforeapproaching us with your inquiry, we would ask that you do not use ourphotos to enhance your project."

to which I responded:

Roxanne,

While my degrees are in mathematics and computer science, my father and grandfather are both professors of economics. I have spent a lot of time talking, thinking, and reading about this science.  Every previous proposal I have seen with any similarity to your description [ http://www.thevenusproject.com/resource_eco.htm] has, upon inspection, thought, and/or discussion, turned out to be unrealistic and poorly thought out.  In my experience, such ideas are almost always the  product of a profound lack of understanding of current economic systems, and this becomes quickly apparent when their proponents attempt to defend them.  While it is possible that your system is the exception to this pattern, it seems very unlikely. Hence my suspicion.

For example, the idea found in your piece that the net result of technological improvement is to decrease purchasing power, while common, is entirely wrong.  For a clear and well-written explanation of why, see Henry Hazlitt's classic "Economics in One Lesson".  Such fallacies, to me, indicate that your system is probably just like all the others I have investigated and found to be inconsistent with reality. So from the material at hand, I think my conclusion is quite reasonable, and that it is unlikely that further inquiry will be productive.  From your perspective, your views may be unique and worthy of exploration, but from mine, the chance that you'll have a new and convincing argument that I didn't see the last few dozen times is pretty low.

Completely aside from this academic disagreement on the subject of economics, I am rather troubled by your apparent policy of not allowing your images to be cited when talking about your project, unless the context is entirely favorable and without criticism. It's not as if I was using your material to explain some concept of mine, I was simply using it as part of a description of your project. This intolerance to differences in opinion seems rather at odds with your claimed vision of a "more humane society" and a "better future".

I still stand behind these words.

Although you are very articulate, your line of thinking is clearly both very judgmental, and somewhat arrogant; you basically say that by researching other similar (in your view) ideas, that you found to be flawed and unrealistic, this gives enough evidence enough to automatically conclude that "The Venus Project" is also one of these unrealistic ideas. -And this you do not need to investigate, because your past research is evidence enough. So instead of responding to a very polite request for the sharing of information, or a debate, you ignore this, and let your own pre-made opinion decide that there`s no need for this. -This is high level arrogance, and low level thinking. -Clearly you are neither a true scientist, or an original thinker.

-The only intolerence shown in your discussion here, is that of your intolerence for other peoples will to state their purpose, and explain their ideas in depth.

Think again, friend... think again... ;)

Love

Siddha

 so you took 5 minutes? I may make a fool of myself by assuming that youre being sarcastic... They say the earth has abundant resources and so there is no need to charge for money for them... because this is true.. your example of oil costing time and money to get and distribute is both irrelevent and moronic in a way... no offense ... its just that,  in the venus project... there would be no use for oil.. they are going to be using technology such as solar panels and wind mills and so forth... by using these technologies, the resources are in fact abundant and cause no pollution... I am not sure what your 5 minutes of time was used for but I really doubt that it was used to really investigate what the venus project is really about.

I don't think basic economics will apply to the Venus Project.  Throw all those thoughts out the window,  Bye bye to money.  Common goals for the benefit of everyone. I can find other faults withinin the ideas but it has been stated that it isn't perfect.  Looks a whole lot better than what is happening now.