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.