Dear Dick,

I would like to thank you for offering to kick in another $500 for our bumper sticker contest. You can make the cheque payable to Citizens Electoral Council and post to PO Box 376, Coburg VIC 3058. Moreover, in that same spirit of continuing to draw publicity for this crucial matter, I propose that you and I meet in a public debate on this matter at a time and place of your choosing, as soon as possible. You are probably well aware of what we have said on this matter, but, to give you a "heads-up" on matters that likely will come up in such a debate:

1) Dick, you probably are not aware of it, since you just got into this business in the past few months, but "population control" and "sustainable population" are just the new names for the "science" of eugenics. In modern times, all this population hysteria dates to the founding of the WWF in 1961. Of the three key founders, one, Prince Philip, is on record wanting to be "reincarnated as a deadly virus" to help solve the "population problem"; the second, Prince Bernhard, was a member of the Nazi SS; and the third, Julian Huxley, was at the time the president of the British Eugenics Society, who actually wrote in 1946 that the Nazis had unfortunately discredited the name of "eugenics", so the same practice would have to be carried out under other labels. That's no "conspiracy theory", but just the straightforward history of this business, which has been amply documented.

2) Dick, to be honest, the whole idea of "overpopulation" is just plain scientific quackery. The entire history of mankind has been one of overcoming seemingly fixed boundaries of resources by mastering and applying new scientific principles in the economy. How do you think we got to our present almost 7 billion people in the first place? And if Earth ever fills up, we'll just start settling some of the billions upon billions of planets out there, beginning with Mars, which we have to get started on anyway, for numerous reasons. But, if Australia stays as basically a giant quarry and an ever-shrinking farm—as you seem to propose, Dick, from what I have seen of your statements—of course we are going to have problems. You yourself would therefore be creating the problems of which you complain. For a quick glimpse of the sort of thing we should do in Australia, Dick, to really green the Australian continent, take the 25 minute "guided tour" of the North American Water and Power Alliance program in the United States at http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15557 . The prospect of "putting shovels in the dirt" to start NAWAPA as early as this October, is unleashing enormous enthusiasm both in the U.S. and around the world, because it will create 3-4 million jobs right off the bat and upgrade the biosphere by shifting weather patterns and turning the great North American desert into green; it will also set an optimistic precedent for other nations to go ahead and build similar great projects. If you want green, why don't we go ahead and build the obvious great water projects here, green Australia, and actually develop this beautiful great continent of ours? If you had a weed patch, or just barren dirt in your backyard and wanted a flower garden, you'd just do the obvious to create it.

Greening a continent is really not much different. You like unusual, bold projects, and big challenges, so how about that one? As for me, I was a farmer before I realised I had to get into politics, and I was doing groundbreaking work on developing better soils, so greening Australia is right up my alley. Why don’t we work on it together?

So, thanks again for the extra $500 and I am much looking forward to our debate. The media will love it.

Sincerely,

Craig Isherwood

Dear Craig

You don't seem to understand—I'm simply a car radio installer who uses commonsense to make decisions. In relation to growth and population I want to see as much discussion as possible. What can be wrong with that? We live in a democracy.

By the way, there are a couple of important things I would want to know before I considered a debate.

Firstly, what is your belief in relation to exponential growth, i.e. do you believe we can have continuous exponential growth in the use of material resources and energy without encountering problems? Do you know of any creature in nature—other than humans—which increases exponentially in its own numbers? My point is that virtually everything I can see in nature other than human beings has its own finite threshold at which it achieves balance with its environment. As I am saying, human beings appear to be the exception to this fundamental rule of nature.

The second question I would like to ask you is do you think there would be advantages for average Australians in our population in Australia going to, say, 100 or 200 billion?

Of course, there will be benefits for wealthy people like me from growth, as the wealthy have always benefited from growth in the past. But I am just wondering if you do actually envisage a limit to the number of people who can live in Australia at a standard of living at least as good as that which we currently have? Or do you see no limit? One trillion in Australia? Or by then are you seriously suggesting we would have already colonised other planets ad infinitum? If so, what is the problem that you have with stabilising the population if it is achieved voluntarily?

Also, as you probably know, around the world educated societies are experiencing smaller and smaller population increases. In fact, many countries are decreasing population entirely by choice, largely through the education of women and their choosing to have fewer or no children, particularly where they do not believe there is a chance of providing their children with reasonably good standards of living.

Anyway, please answer these few questions before I agree to have a debate with you. As you can understand, I am interested in getting publicity for the Wilberforce Award—I want a young person to become famous in communicating that we can't always have exponential growth in the use of resources and energy in a finite world. Of course, if you don't agree with this fundamental premise it would be a complete waste of time debating with you. It would be almost like me debating religion if you have a belief in one religion and I have a commitment to another.

Most importantly, I wonder if you are being used at the moment. I notice many of the entries for the Dick Smith Sticker Award are extremely childish. Won't this destroy your credibility? Could it be that there are people who purport to be members of your organisation who are really just there to discredit you and undermine everything you do? I have a feeling this might be the case, because I can't imagine a serious organisation being part of something which is so pathetically childish. What have you thought about this?

By the way, your cheque is in the mail.

Regards

Dick Smith

Dear Dick,

With your question, "Do you know of any creature in nature—other than humans—which increases exponentially in its own numbers?", you put your finger on the crucial issue. What you are actually asking is: "Are human beings just another form of animal?" Well, if they were, then mankind—which is less well endowed for physical survival in the wild than most animals—would never have expanded beyond his "natural" world population density, which scientists estimate at perhaps a few million ape-like creatures based on calculating the square kilometres necessary to support a single ape-like human being. The very fact that we are now approaching 7 billion people on this planet, proves precisely that mankind is not just another animal.

But you already know that, at least implicitly. When you were a young fellow, you were fascinated by the radio equipment of your Uncle Harold in your grandfather Cazneaux's house. But with your naked senses, did you ever actually see a radio wave? The sort of fundamental advances in science which allow human beings to support ever-greater population densities are always the result of creative hypothesising beyond what is seen or heard by the mere senses, which is to say by the use of the creative powers of the human mind above the sole reliance on sense certainty which keep animals limited to a certain fixed population density with respect to a given environment. Of course as the human economy grows over time, it necessarily begins to run up against scarcities in the raw materials upon which any fixed mode of production depends. But then, man makes a scientific breakthrough which leads to the use of new, previously unthought-of "raw materials", and therefore overcomes the previous seeming "limits to growth". (What was "iron ore" to mankind 100,000 years ago but just another rock?) These scientific breakthroughs in understanding and then applying the laws of the Universe is how we got from a few hundred million to our present almost 7 billion, because the nature of man himself is to exercise creative powers of mind which no animal ever has, nor ever could. And this process is indeed unlimited, because it is in the very nature of man himself.

Now, look at this issue from the most advanced scientific standpoint, that of the Russian biogeochemist Vladimir I. Vernadsky (1863-1945), as that standpoint is further developed for the science of physical economy by the Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Vernadsky—who by the way invented the modern notion of the "Biosphere"—demonstrated that there are three different, but mutually interacting "phase spaces" in the known physical universe. In increasing order of demonstrable physical power, they are: 1) the abiotic ("non-living" rocks or crystals, for instance) 2) the biotic, characterised by the principle of life, and 3) the noetic, characterised by the creative powers of the human mind. Thus, just as over time the principle of life assumes increasing physical dominance over the abiotic, i.e. that the sheer mass of the Biosphere increases relative to that of the abiotic, so the sheer mass of the Noösphere (including the creation of cities, great infrastructure projects, worldwide modern agriculture, etc.) increases with respect to that of the Biosphere. Thus the emergence and increasing dominance by mankind of the Biosphere, far from being some quirk which somehow got control and went wild, as sense-certainty-controlled Greenies maintain, is a lawful principle of the Universe itself! (And we naturally have responsibility for that Biosphere, to develop it. That’s what great water projects, for instance, are all about.) And mankind's power over nature typically takes the form of his invention and use of ever-increasing powers of energy-flux-density, such as the transition from burning wood, to coal, to coke, to petroleum, to natural gas, to nuclear fission, to nuclear fusion, and on towards matter-antimatter reactions. It is only when that process is wilfully stopped, as in the Greenies' irrational proposals to outlaw the use of nuclear energy, for instance, that one experiences a seeming "population problem." The whole idea of "sustainable energy" or a "steady-state economy" is a myth, but one with genocidal consequences. In the real world, an economy is either growing, or it is dying. And what fool would propose the widespread use of "solar collectors" to produce energy (which cost energy more to produce, than what they return), especially when the incoming sunlight could be transformed into higher, more useful forms of energy-flux-density by the chlorophyll of plants and trees, which, among other things, would change weather patterns for the better? Thus, the widespread use of solar collectors actually degrades the Biosphere, not to mention that they are a deadly menace when installed on top of houses. [See article here.]

As to your other questions, on whether I wish to see 100 or 200 billion or even a trillion people in Australia, why look at it that way? Why not colonise Mars by the end of this present century, and then move beyond the Solar System out into our vast Galaxy, itself only one of hundreds of billions of galaxies? Raw materials are finite? "Living space" is finite? Viewing the virtually limitless expanse of outer space, who in their right mind could conceivably make such a preposterous argument?

Dick, the fundamental point here is that by virtue of using the creative powers of his or her individual human mind—if those powers are allowed to be developed, which they usually are not these days—each human being creates far more "wealth" than what he or she seemingly "consumes". So, the more people, the more "wealth". And, as you pointed out, as society advances, the natural tendency is for families not to have 12 or 15 children because of the high infant mortality rates in underdeveloped countries, but the far fewer per household typical of advanced economies. So, even on that elementary level, you are not looking at some "runaway population bomb". You want to slow down the worldwide birthrate? Then develop!

And in that regard, concerning the large-scale development of the Biosphere, have you had a chance to watch the NAWAPA video for which I gave you the link? [Click here.] I really suggest you take a few minutes to do so, and then tell me what you think, when you see what mankind can do to raise the Biosphere itself to a higher level of development (i.e. "greening the deserts", etc.) than it would ever have achieved on its own. Not to mention creating immediately 3-4 million high-skilled jobs to begin pulling America and the world out of this present deepening depression, indeed out what is rapidly becoming the worst financial/economic collapse in human history, with a staggering 35-40 million Americans out of a total work force of 153 million now unemployed, already the equivalent of the Great Depression of the 1930s. (See article here for documentation.)

As is happening in the United States, where one out of every 10 homeowners is now faced with foreclosure, Australians are losing their jobs, their homes, and their future at an accelerating rate. Then along comes someone who proposes something which many rightly suspect would make their already desperate situation far worse, someone proposing "population control", involving further cutbacks in the economy, etc. Is it any wonder that many of the bumper sticker entries are not so "funny", but that they often, in their own way, express rage more than irony? But we do have a number of very good entries, and if you have some good ironic ideas in mind, by all means please submit them. The entries will of course be judged "blind", and it would be truly hilarious were you yourself to win.

There is much, much more I could say on these matters of creativity, physical economy, and the Biosphere, but I hope I have given you some food for thought, and I look forward to continuing our dialogue. In furtherance of that dialogue, in addition to the link to the NAWAPA video and the article on the actual state of the U.S. economy, I will post you the CEC’s 2002 special report "The Infrastructure Road to Recovery—Let's Build Our Way Out of the Depression!" I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the highly optimistic, eminently feasible proposals we sketch out there, which we are now in the midst of developing further. By your own account, you have spent hundreds of hours reading various books on alleged "population problems", so I am sure you could fit a few hours into your busy schedule to review an actual, scientific pathway out of the mess the world presently finds itself in, one which has far, far different causes than "overpopulation", and one which therefore has far different solutions than the anti-scientific, anti-human nonsense propagated by Prince Philip's WWF and its clones—all of whom are funded by the very biggest of "Big Business", in case you hadn’t noticed.

Let's talk again soon, and thanks very much for your $500 addition to the bumper sticker prize.

Regards,

Craig Isherwood

Print the above letter as a flyer (pdf).

Hello Dick,

I have not heard a response from my last email on the 2^nd September. Have you been told to shut-up?

Regards,

Craig Isherwood

Dear Craig

The reason I didn't answer you was because you didn't answer one of my basic questions.

If you remember, I said words to the effect, "do you think there would be advantages from our population in Australia going to, say, 100 or 200 billion". Notice I did mention billion—it was not a typo. I don't mean million. So, Craig, what's your answer? What are the advantages for typical Australians?

As I have said, wealthy people like me will no doubt derive great advantages. We will make sure that happens because of the power we have. But I want to know what your view is for the typical Australian—say, the wage and salary earner and retiree.

You also seem to think that humans are different creatures from the rest of nature. Well, you have every right to have a fundamentalist belief in that if you wish. However, I have never seen any evidence to support this view. Yes, we humans have a more highly developed brain and that has allowed us to increase our population greatly. But in the end I believe we are simply parts of nature, and if we don't live in balance with our environment, we will end up in the same situation as other creatures who have failed to do this.

Regards

Dick Smith

Dear Dick,

We are announcing the winning entry in our Dick Smith Bumper Sticker Contest later today, so I wanted you to be the first to know it. It is: 'Overpopulation': Dick's Myth. Not bad, huh? Five thousand bumper stickers with that slogan will begin going out as soon as we can print them.

As to your question "Do you think there would be advantages from our population in Australia going to, say, 100 or 200 billion?", I don’t think there is any worry of that whatsoever, presuming that we as human beings act rationally. To put it in perspective, in 1963 Australia’s population reached 11 million and 46 years later (2009) it had doubled to 22 million. If we kept doubling at this rate, then we would hit 100 billion in 2568. But, you also asked me, in your email of 30 August, regarding a hypothetical 1 trillion Australians, "Are you seriously suggesting we would have already colonized other planets ad infinitum?" Yes, I absolutely am suggesting that we will have colonized at least some of the other uncounted hundreds of billions of planets out there; in fact, given the rather dicey prospects of mankind being limited to only one relatively vulnerable planet, this Earth, and the fact that the Sun is for sure going to blow up someday, we in any case have to get up off the Earth sometime. So let's make a virtue out necessity and start now, aiming toward a Moon-Mars colonization program by the end of this present century. We not only have to do it, but we will receive enormous benefits from doing so. For instance, the U.S. space program of the late 1960s and early 1970s returned $10 for every $1 dollar spent on it, before it was irrationally shut down. But perhaps even more importantly, we will give our children, our grandchildren and generations beyond them the prospect of an exciting and noble future. Can you seriously say that children growing up today have any such exciting prospect?

I raised a number of other issues in a previous email, such as the urgently-needed North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) program for the U.S./Canada/Mexico http://www.larouchepac.com/infrastructure and similar programs elsewhere in the world as well as here in Australia. This will begin a genuine global economic recovery, and through the deeper understanding of the Biosphere which such a huge project will give us, we will begin to learn how to create artificial atmospheres on other planets. This bears upon both the scientifically known, as well as unknown interrelationships of the Lithosphere, the Biosphere and the Noosphere. I don't know whether you have had a chance to think yet about these matters I raised in a previous email, but since by virtue of our previous exchanges we have begun to "get down to brass tacks" on certain fundamental scientific and philosophical issues, I propose that we not worry about a public debate at the moment—although I would be more than happy to have one—but that I and perhaps one of my associates get together with you over coffee and discuss some of these matters through in a way which is very difficult, if not impossible to do merely by email. Since we are both passionately concerned about saving mankind, and since we both agree that the world is presently in an existential crisis, I don’t see how we would have anything to lose and perhaps a very great deal to gain. How about it, Dick? And thanks again for your help on the bumper sticker contest. In addition to the winning entry, you can find a list of the top ten runners-up at http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=population.html#bumpersticker

Best regards,

Craig Isherwood

Dear Craig

I thought you would chicken out re. the discussion/debate—I think you have made a wise choice.

I suppose the reason I would prefer not to have the discussion/debate is the fact that at the present time over nine out of ten Australians believe that we should have a plan for population and that we shouldn’t just keep expanding ad infinitum. This nine out of ten compares with the tiny percentage that agree with your views after you have been propagating them for many years. The year 2568 is not far away when you consider that Aboriginal people have inhabited Australia for something in the order of between 30,000 and 60,000 years.

Anyway, I think the sticker is a good idea because it’s going to get people thinking about population. Also, I have one advantage over you, and that is that most Aussies are sensible and rational, that’s why nine out of ten believe we shouldn’t just keep expanding ad infinitum without any plan.

All the best

Regards

Dick Smith

Dear Dick,

You are truly hilarious! As a precondition for a public debate, you had insistently demanded from me an answer to the absurd question of whether I think Australia were better off with 100 billion, 200 billion, or perhaps 1 trillion people. And what happened? I not only answered your question (twice!), but also put forward a number of crucial issues which must be addressed for any competent discussion regarding "population issues". These included:

1) the scientific reality, in ascending order, of the demonstrable power of the Lithosphere, the Biosphere, and the Noosphere, with the profound implications of that reality for the human race;

2) the necessity to pull the world out of a financial/economic crisis already worse than that of the Great Depression of the 1930s by implementing the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) program in the U.S. and similar great infrastructure programs worldwide, including in Australia; and

3) the tremendously exciting, and urgently necessary prospect of colonizing other planets starting immediately, and of transforming our Biosphere here on Earth in the meantime.

And what is your response to these profound matters? Deafening silence! Instead, you come back with what "popular opinion" allegedly thinks about "overpopulation". Did popular opinion discover Kepler’s universal law of gravitation? Did popular opinion discover Einstein's principle of the relativity of physical space/time? Did popular opinion discover Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony? Did popular opinion ever discover any universal principle, of any sort, ever?

Since I have answered the question you demanded as preliminary to a public debate, and since you have now turned down my offer to discuss privately with you these profound matters noted above (which I had extended so as not to embarrass you in public in case you had never even considered such crucial matters, which you not only apparently hadn't, but now even refuse to), I now throw down the gauntlet once again:

Will you publicly debate me on the issue of "overpopulation", Dick, or will you run and hide behind a lot of boobs? In fact, it is a bit unclear why you are launching this campaign in the first place, if, as you claim, nine out of 10 Australians already agree with you. But with all that mass ostensibly in your corner, surely you're not scared to debate me?

Best regards,

Craig Isherwood

Dear Craig

Referring to your most recent email of Friday 24 September 2010.

In relation to my question to you re. whether you think there would be advantages in our population in Australia going to, say, 100 or 200 billion, you state, "I not only answered your question (twice!)", and later "Since I have answered the question you demanded as preliminary to a public debate…".

However, Craig, you haven't answered my question. My question was: do you think there would be advantages in our population in Australia going to, say, 100 or 200 billion?

Let's make it more realistic, then, if you are having difficulty in answering my question. Do you think there would be advantages for typical Australians if we were to go to, say, 50 or 100 million? By "advantages" I mean in quality of life and satisfaction for typical Australians, i.e. not just the wealthy like myself but for working class Australians, retirees and families.

The main reason I don't want to have a discussion is that I don't really want to waste the time, i.e. your time. I have a feeling you are going to write to me one day and say that it's all some kind of April Fool's joke; that you don't believe for a second that we should be planning to colonise other planets. And you don't even know the demonstrable power of the Lithosphere, let alone the Noosphere!!!!

I must admit, politics is incredibly boring and it is interesting having a group who believe we should be colonising other planets—starting immediately—especially when they claim "the fact that the Sun is for sure going to blow up someday, we in any case have to get up off the Earth sometime".

So Craig, come on. Please come clean. Admit that you are a branch of that wonderful – but now, I think, defunct—British "Raving Loony Party".

Anyway, I love the idea of the sticker. Please send up some so I can hand them out to my friends.

And please keep up the good work. Australia would be more boring and dull without you. I'm sure we can both agree that the present politics are just that.

Regards

Dick

Dear Dick,

In all this discussion about population, you have repeatedly claimed to be motivated, as in your last letter, by concern for "not just the wealthy like myself but for working class Australians, retirees and families." Yet, you insist on discussing the question of population (its size, rate of growth, etc.) without the slightest concern for the actual real world in which these "working class Australians, retirees and families" live right now, let alone for the actual world in which they and their descendants will live in 25, 50 or more years.

The reality is that we are in a global economic/financial crisis which is already more profound than that of the Great Depression. That is only typified by the fact that all of the world's major banks (including in Australia) would have collapsed years ago, were it not for constant government bailouts. Can you conceivably dispute that fact? As you may be aware, under the insane City of London/Wall St. policies of the Bush/Obama administrations, the U.S. alone has bailed out the banks with an estimated $US 23 trillion minimum, this while some 40 million Americans are unemployed, and, according to just released, widely-publicised official figures which you may have seen, 1 in 7 Americans now live below the official poverty line (which line itself is utterly inadequate). Here in Australia, our government has repeatedly bailed out the banks as well, without which they also assuredly would have collapsed, as Ross Garnaut has publicly admitted, in The Great Crash of 2008 (Ross Garnaut and David Llewellyn-Smith). Yet these same banks, whether British, American, European, or Australian have engaged in the greatest speculative bubble in the history of mankind. Our own banks in Australia hold some $15 trillion in funny-money derivatives, speculative holdings which dwarf those same banks' actual assets. Even British establishment figures (such as the Daily Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard recently), have admitted that this bailout policy will cause a worldwide hyperinflationary collapse far worse than that of 1923 Germany. That was only one country, but this will be the whole world. In such a collapse, the world population would rapidly plunge from its present almost 7 billion down to perhaps 1-2 billion, maybe much less, exactly as happened in the 14^th Century New Dark Age following that century's international banking collapse. Yet, WWF and ACF founder Prince Philip has repeatedly called for that kind of population collapse, while championing precisely the kinds of economic policies which will cause it. Are you also in favor of that "solution", which will be the necessary, easily predictable outcome of the London/Wall St. crowd's policies?

Or, Dick, will you support the kinds of policies which U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt applied as soon as he took office in 1933, to begin to pull both the U.S. and the world out of the Great Depression? These were anchored on a Glass-Steagall Act banking reform and building great infrastructure projects. Will you support a Glass-Steagall reform to separate speculative investment banking from actual legitimate commercial banks which hold people's savings and make loans for housing, agriculture and industry? This reform would wipe out much of the estimated $1.4 quadrillion in speculation worldwide, and free up untold trillions of government money to be applied to the Common Good, to solve the multitude of problems in health care, education, and general infrastructure collapse with which we are now plagued. So who are you for, Dick: the banks, or the "little guy"?

Now, as to "population" per se: with a national banking-financed, great infrastructure project-centered economic recovery, Australia could easily support not just 50 or 100 million, but many more and at a much better standard of living than at present, or even than that of the relative halcyon days of the 1950s. Therefore, just to be clear as to whether I "think there would be advantages for typical Australians if we were to go to, say, 50 or 100 million", my answer is a resounding "Yes!" Putting aside the provable reality, that an economy (and therefore its population) either grows or it dies because there is no such thing as a mythical "steady state", the point is that we are also going to need many more Aussies in order to build a continent-wide maglev system, to build numerous great water projects, to embark on a space program and to do the other things which will enrich the lives of every single Australian. That reality was obvious to most Australians at the end of World War II, for instance. Meanwhile, the average Australian whom you profess to be so concerned about is increasingly miserable right now, with millions of them already either having either lost their houses, or facing foreclosure in the immediate future, even aside from suffering the effects of our collapsing health care system and numerous other problems also brought on by privatisation/deregulation/free trade looting. And, aside from their present misery, most Australians have no optimistic vision of the future, no hope for the kinds of great projects like the Snowy Scheme which our country could achieve if we set our minds to it. We were once the "Lucky Country"; are those days gone forever?

In that regard, I would like some feedback from you on two items which represent solutions: 1) the CEC's program of great infrastructure projects which we published already in 2002, and which again would not only support, but even require a growing Australian population (sent previously), and 2) a video, which I am mailing, of the CEC’s LaRouche-inspired Homeowners and Bank Protection Bill, for an immediate moratorium on all home foreclosures in Australia, and national banking reorganisation measures based upon Glass-Steagall standards.

It is not enough to simply whine about alleged "overpopulation" problems, if one is supporting precisely those free trade, globalist policies which cause what some ignorant or ill-meaning fools would classify as "overpopulation". So I await some specific feedback from you on the two items referenced above. Additionally, I have heard precisely zero from you on the NAWAPA program which I gave you the link for http://www.larouchepac.com/infrastructure even though this is the urgently-needed driver for a global economic recovery, and for beginning to master the Biosphere in a much more comprehensive fashion than anything mankind has done so far, preparatory to moving into space. If you are serious about "population" questions, and about the relationship of mankind to the Biosphere, then you could not conceivably just ignore NAWAPA.

On a related matter, I am happy to enclose 20 (with the DVD video above) of our contest-winning "Overpopulation": Dick's Myth bumper stickers. Let me know if you need more. And as for our proposed public debate, don’t have a second thought about me "wasting my time"—I am more than happy to contribute it, so the challenge still stands!

Best regards,

Craig

Craig

I have now read your email of 1 October 2010.

Craig, I simply don’t have the time to answer all the points you have made. You are one person, when I am spending my time communicating to millions. That is, of course, what you should be doing.

As it is, most Australians support the view that we should have a plan in relation to population and we should not just keep increasing forever. Of course you have a different view, but in the time you have been working on it you have obviously only been able to convince a very small section of the Australian population.

I notice the publications you send me are years out of date. Why aren’t you publishing every week or every month? Presumably because you have such a small number of supporters. Of course, having a small number of supporters doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it does mean it’s going to be a lot more difficult to get your views over. I find I tend to stick to causes where I know there is a reasonable chance of success.

I am totally convinced that we can have a very successful economy with a basically stable population. Yes, it will be different to what we have now and it will require a different type of leadership. My belief is that if we can’t achieve that, we are doomed—and that could be so.

No, I won’t want to waste my time debating you. You obviously have a view which is similar to a religious fundamentalist, i.e. you are so utterly convinced you are right that no-one would ever be able to convince you of anything different. Possibly you could accuse me of the same thing. In that circumstance, we shouldn’t continue to waste each other’s time.

Thanks for the stickers. I am thinking about whether I should put one on my car to create further interest in the subject.

Regards

Dick

Dear Dick,

Just to sum up where we stand, in light of your October 25 reply to my email of October 1, 2010:

1) You have refused to even consider the real-world reality of the present, deepening global financial crash, nor any of the detailed solutions we have proposed to address that reality, both internationally and in Australia. So much for your professed concern for the "average working-class Australian".

2) You state that you are "totally convinced that we can have a very successful economy with a basically stable population", yet that is demonstrably a lunatic pipe dream, which has never yet existed in the real world, nor ever could, as I have provided you the proof, which you have ignored.

3) You state that this new, "very successful economy … will be different to what we have now". Indeed. But do you dare specify how? Are you, for instance, in favour of the present plan to shut down (and therefore depopulate) the enormously productive agricultural productive base which has been built up over decades in the Murray-Darling Basin, in favour of so-called "river health"?

4) You have basically accused me of being a "religious fundamentalist". Actually, it is you who are the religious fundamentalist: it is just that you, like WWF founder Prince Philip—and whether or not you choose to acknowledge it—worship not the Judaeo-Christian God the Creator, but the pagan goddess Gaia (the Great Earth Mother) with an apparent fanaticism which rivals that of the Jesuits, in that you are crusading to eliminate millions of human beings in Australia and billions worldwide, apparently on behalf of "Nature".

Since you seemingly have decided to break off this correspondence without actually addressing the crucial matters at hand, it would appear that we will have to continue this discussion via other forums.

Regards,

Craig Isherwood

Population - background

May/June 2010 New Citizen
CEC Hammers Genocide Policies
The Genocide File: The Campaign to Depopulate Australia

The truth behind "population stabilisation"— The ACF Comes Out of the Closet for Genocide

Prince Philip, Genocidalist, in his own words

British free trade—Genocide through starvation

Global Warming—British for Genocide

Cap and Trade Is Genocide (PDF)

The Road to Hell Is Paved Green (PDF)

Media Release: Isherwood: ACF a noxious pest

Media Release: CSIRO report earns a “G” for Genocide

Media Release: Abbott joins Prince Philip’s green genocide army

Media Release: August/September New Citizen:
Climate change crusaders are genocidalists—are you?

Media Release: You can call it genocide