What is under-hyped in cryptocurrencies right now?


Under-hyped is different from undervalued so I’m not sure that Greg Matthews’ answer quite addresses your question

with the large number of currencies in existence it’s difficult to keep up with what’s hot and what’s not but the best thing is to research and understand the activity level behind a currency and ask question. such as:

  • does the coin have an active development team?
  • what use cases does it serve?
  • how is the team marketing the coin?
  • what apps are being developed to use it?
  • is it listed on an exchange such that the public can purchase it easily?

the answers to such questions give you a perspective on whether there is potential behind the coin and allow you to compare hype against market valuations

a good example is a little-known coin called Einsteinium (EMC2). it was created a few years ago and all but died. in recent memory it has regained the market’s interest as developers and miners have begun lining up to get involved. the community is actively pursuing a number of interesting use cases and in my opinion there’s very little press about it, something that will change

currently pricing is hovering at around 3,000 satoshi/coin with a market cap of about $15M USD, but the coin could easily double or triple. only time will tell, of course, but given the Einsteinium Foundation’s agenda for growth and their active involvement with the energy sector, a super-wallet (in development) and various channels currently under exploration to provide a public on-ramp for the currency, it’s easy to see big gains coming in the mid-term

additionally, due to a technical issue where one of the exchanges (currently traded on Bittrex and Poloniex) discovered a double-spend (no one lost money but the issue had to do with under-capacity of hashpower on the network, which is being addressed as a high priority), the price at this point makes it a good buying opportunity


Eric Cadler 

The ICO: an expression of Koyaanisqatsi


the Status project raised $270M this morning in under 3 hours, concurrent to Civic’s, which completed its ICO for a total of $64M in a heavily oversubscribed offering

as with the Bancor ICO of just a few days ago, which raised $150M, the process generated great congestion on the Ethereum network and left many would-be participants out in the cold

in the context of the US national debt, or of market valuations for companies like Apple or Google, these sums are tiny, but if we consider that the purveyors of these funds are not institutions but individuals, not the great occidental pools of money collected over decades from the non-thinking public, but the hard-earned capital from little peoples across the world thinking hard about the potential of these projects, we start to discern something novel in this withering period of world history

unlike the IPOs of earlier days, these currency issuance events are not the product of lawyers, months of costly due diligence, SEC filings and government accreditations for participants; in fact, often there aren’t even legally formed companies for ICOs — the groups involved instead choosing to operate as github projects i.e. loose coalitions of developers living in different continents who have never met face-to-face and contribute to the project without compensation or clear leadership

gone are the Private Placement Memorandums (PPMs), Ivy League educated CEOs, prestigious underwriters like Goldman Sachs, auditors, and panoply of parasites we’ve all grown accustomed to. gone is the ludicrous notion of investing in intellectual property, in institutions and reputations

what we’re investing in now — often conveyed via little more than a whitepaper — is disruption. we’re investing in the unknown, in anything with the potential to change the status quo, and in the faith that anyone who would build a thing on their own time and contribute it anonymously to the world must do it out of altruism instead of greed

the posterchild for the nascent zeitgeist is, of course, Satoshi Nakamoto. whoever he is, we owe him a unpayable debt of gratitude, not only for the gift of Bitcoin, but also for bright-lining the leitmotif of the open source community: that something truly valuable must belong to those it serves, that ideas aren’t property, and that if we work together we can change the world

the Hopi tribes of North America use the word Koyaanisqatsi to mean “a life out of balance” — a state of affairs that demands a change in the state of affairs

and there is little question that on a planetary level we are awakening to the consciousness that our present way of life is unsustainable. for those that never heard of crypto-currencies, expression for change comes in the form of President Trump’s election and Brexit, the Scottish secession movement, or the many occupy/resistance initiatives out there

for those of us who understand the vision behind “crypto” and the enormity of the change it represents, there are ICOs

Erick Cadler

What would happen if a country converted all of its currency to Bitcoins?

The short answer: it would make its citizens instantly wealthy beyond imagination.

Adopting bitcoin as a national currency would mean exchanging all of that nation’s currency for BTC, a process that, no matter how small the nation, would represent a colossal demand for the crypto-currency.

Additionally, as most nations today use the US dollar as a reserve currency, such a move would also represent the dumping of greenbacks, which would cause an equally massive downward pressure on USD.

Together, the USD/BTC cross would see complete collapse, dealing the already moribund dollar a mortal blow that would force all other nations to divest themselves of it, lest they be left with no value in reserves at all.

In selecting a new reserve currency, no nation could, of course, steer clear from the unavoidable political choice of picking the fastest appreciating, most secure and well proven currency the world has ever seen: bitcoin.

At that point, the average exchange rate at which the posited first nation managed to bitcoinise will pale in comparison to the rates other nations will pay in their frenzy to keep whatever wealth they have collected and said nation’s citizenry will have acquired a benefit which I needn’t expound on here.

As a final note I would add that having adopted bitcoin as a global currency would in one quick blow eradicate most of humanity’s suffering: no more hunger, no more war, no more illness, no more poverty. for these are all creatures of our degenerate monetary system, which in our age we have haplessly come to believe a necessary yoke, but which bitcoin will prove wrong.

That said, I have little doubt that no sooner is there talk of any such move by a nation, than will the US dispatch a “diplomatic” detachment to quash any such thinking, for no dollar dumping can ever be allowed (another topic I need not expound upon for the already abundant precedent to draw from).

Erick Calder

convert bitcoin

Who missed Bitcoin and wants to start over again?

Wo miseed bitcoin - EMC2 Blog Image

no one has missed bitcoin. it’s still there and if you want to buy it, you can. that some may have missed the rise in price over the last X months, sure, but that is not reason to miss the rise in price over the coming Y months and years

anyone looking at bitcoin at USD 1,600 today thinking it’s gone as far as it’s going to go fails to understand the staggering social change it represents, the minute impact it’s had so far, and thus the amazing potential that remains to materialise

another way of saying this is: you can always say to yourself you “missed” bitcoin. I thought so when it was $200/coin and there will be people that think so when it sells for $20,000/coin. but no matter at which point, they’ll still be wrong. there’s a point at which measuring bitcoin in terms of US dollars or Euro is no longer significant and if you didn’t get in by that time, you’ll have just squandered whatever wealth you have that you could have put into BTC

erick calder

Of bubbles and metaphors

Bubbles and metaphors EMC2 Blog

With the prices of crypto-currencies quickly rising out of everyone’s reach, one of the more common questions being asked is: “Are we in a bubble?”

What this metaphor is really asking for is a risk assessment regarding price stability and the likelihood that our potential investment may see a price collapse that leaves us somewhat poorer and less hopeful about the future

to discuss the subject in a language less informal than that of bursting bubbles, let’s define the condition in question as an over-exertion of the market. markets have buyers and sellers, the numbers of which wax and wane, and as the ratio of these two classes of participants changes, it causes prices to rise and fall, like the tides. generally, as demand for a commodity rises, it stretches the supply causing price hikes and and attendant enthusiasm from those long the position (those who own the commodity). at some point prices are sufficiently high (a point of over-exertion) that demand starts to loosen and prices fall, finding the other end of the pendulum, only to rise again

however, to assess whether market is over-exerted one cannot merely look at the price of an asset e.g. a single share of Berkshire Hathaway is quoted presently at $249,610 yet no one would point to it and claim it’s ready to burst. similarly, a rapid rise in the price of an asset is also not sufficient to classify a market as being in a bubble — consider that Monster (the beverage) saw a 11,731% gain since it’s IPO (as of Aug. 2016) but has found stability, and was thus never a bubble

a “bubble” therefore is a condition of instability. anyone looking at Monster’s scandalous ascent may have concluded it would soon burst, but they would have been wrong. the asset did not collapse in price, nor will it do so at this point

to answer the question of price stability we must turn to the fundamentals of the particular market, in this case, the nature of crypto-currencies, their structure and potential

the single, most important fact to comprehend about Bitcoin, Ethereum, Dash or any of the nearly 2,000 “alt-coins” in existence today is that their supply is limited i.e. the amount of currency available for purchase is finite

this differs substantially from sovereign currencies (those issued by governments, like the Euro or US dollar) whose aggregate monetary supply (i.e. the total number of dollars in existence) is a factor of credit. the signifcance of the previous statement can be expressed as two characteristics of these currencies: 1) nobody, not even the Federal Reserve (who issues US dollars) knows how many dollars exist, and 2) anyone can create a dollar

whilst the last statement may seem shocking to most, consider that any person who deposits $100 in a bank account, through the magic of fractional banking, has just manufactured roughly $1,000 or that the credit cards in your pocket represent a promise to pay which is monetised by banks into actual dollars — as are mortgages, promissory notes, bonds, or any other promise to pay

crypto-currencies are thus a new breed of animal and, of principal interest, one designed to maintain (or increase) the value of the holder, that is to say, they are deflationary. to any reasonable human being, a comparison between these two types of currency yields the simple conclusion that keeping the fruits of one’s labour in fiat represents financial ruin vis-à-vis the potential for a comfortable retirement, a chance to live it up for once, and an inheritance for our children

a secondary fact of consequence to contemplate, in answering the question of the bubble, is that crypto currencies provide a degree of service not currently available by sovereign currencies e.g. security, concealment, ease of transmission and control

security is of paramount importance where wealth is concerned. we work hard for our pennies and therefore keeping them safe from the many hands that would take them by force is a consideration as old as money itself. by its very nature, crypto-currencies defy theft, confiscation, taxation (another form of theft) or devaluation

additionally, as human beings we have an innate sense of what’s “our own business” — the notion that what we do is our affair and no one else’s. in today’s modern world our privacy is tresspassed upon in every way by greedy and controlling governments and corporations that do not serve our interests, and whilst crypto cannot protect one from cameras and NSA snooping, it can protect our identity and the particulars of our transactions

of course, it is also possible to compare crypto-currencies with sovereign money in terms of their transmission capabilities. send money to your parents, it’s 3 banking days; if they live abroad, it’s 10 days or more. and there are fees (everyone takes a cut of your money). and there are limits, and regulations, and snags and misunderstandings, and questions about “our” business. with crypto, on the other hand, a transmissions takes a fraction of a second and is effected for any amount. no rules, no questions asked

and finally, crypto we control. we like control, because we can trust ourselves. across time we have learnt that any time we trust someone else we become vulnerable, and that others put their own interests ahead of ours. do you trust your bank? your government? have you seen what these institutions do? to you? to others? with crypto you have only to ask yourself: do you trust yourself with your own money?

in summary, from a service perspective, crypto currencies are also clearly superiour to fiat, and this creates ancillary demand for that type of asset

as a final third factor in the analysis of fundamentals, consider that each currency offering represents thousands of man-hours of effort. these currencies represent solutions to difficult problems arrived at by brilliant minds whose sole aim is to make life better for everyone

what problems and solutions? take one currency as an example: Ethereum. This is a platform born of the recognition that whilst bitcoin is a state machine capable of managing transitions of a numerical value, that transitions of all kinds can be managed by a blockchain i.e. ethereum is a generalisation of bitcoin that allows others to build distributed applications to solve real-world problems. the market for ether thus comprises not only people and organisations, but also applications i.e. ETH serves as the fuel that runs applications within the world computer that is ethereum

or take Dash, an incarnation of a DAO (a decentralised, autonomous organisation). a DAO is like a company but is not incorporated in any jurisdiction (has no legal existence), has no board of directors, no CEO and no staff, only shareholders. to paraphrase, there is no old-boys network of directors to fleece shareholders, compensating their CEOs with outrageous salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes. no fancy jets or million-dollar birthday parties at the expense of dividends. DAO investors use their tokens to finance projects, the proceeds of which then compensate shareholders directly, without the panoply of parasites traditional of corporations. is there value in this new modality of business? does Dash not represent a more democratic, fair and desirable way for capital and labour to meet? you bet it does

and as we continue down the long list alt-coins, each one of them represents a different set of aims and choices: coins for raising charity funds, coins where the economic model consists of manufacturing liquidity just-in-time and value can’t be stored (i.e. wealth accumulation is impossible), coins issued to pay for specific services, such as with Storj

so given the analysis above, perhaps we can now answer the question of whether at present the crypto markets are in a bubble

what maketh a price is the balance of supply and demand. in the case of crypto, supply is fixed but demand is clearly buoyed by an increasing awareness of a planetary magnitude, by an entusiasm for the discovery, innovation and potential these represent, to change the world we live in, by the growing recognition that our institutions have failed us, but that we have an alternative

there will be price corrections. it is natural of any market, but the party’s just getting started. how much higher can prices reach? where will these markets find balance, stability?

the answers are here: https://medium.com/@ekkis/btc-ad-astra-67b45f2310d2

erick calder

BTC Ad Astra

BTC Ad Astra - EMC2 Blog Image

I run a bitcoin ticker on my Mac to keep me apprised of the ever-changing price of bitcoin on a second-by-second basis. Today it reads $1,591 — the value of a single coin on the Kraken exchange (on Coinbase it’s $1,633 (arbitrage anyone?)), as you can see in the picture above

With a market capitalisation of $26B (see CoinMarketCap), however, BTC remains Liliputian vis-à-vis the sums invested in other asset classes. If compared to gold (market cap: $8.48T) bitcoin represents a tiny 0.3%, and gold itself is considered a tiny market with relation to equities ($69T), debt ($230T) or derivatives ($1,200T) — not to even mention the gargantuan f/x markets

The consensus for establishing market cap is that the last trade’s price forms one of two factors in the calculation, total supply being the second. Regardless of whether that makes sense (in my view just because one coin is valued at a given level doesn’t imply all coins are — try selling all the coins in existence and see what happens to price), bitcoin is unique in one respect: the constraint of its supply. In fact, the same argument could be (and generally is) made of gold but in practice the price of gold does not represent physical gold (which is constrained in supply) but that of the nearest futures contract (which is not). This matters because with a finite supply, increased demand can only be satisfied via a rise in price

As I watch bitcoin’s nearly vertical progression, I cannot help but wonder: where is the threshold at which the computation on the street transforms from ”the price of bitcoin is rising, I should get in” to ”the price of dollars is collapsing, I should get out”? The difference being that whilst the former represents merely an act of speculation, the latter signifies an exodus of capital from the banking system as a protectionary measure from financial ruin

Where is the threshold? where is that point at which a sane human being can only ignore bitcoin at their own peril? does the computation change at $5,000/coin? what about at $50K or $1M? because at some point it becomes patently and excruciatingly obvious that not liquidating all of one’s positions, retirement accounts — basically one’s entire net worth — and placing the lot of it in bitcoin is tantamount to financial ruin

And when that conclusion is reached, what happens to the world we live in? a world without central banking and the ruinous path the ruling élite has chosen for the 99% of us by way of its monetary controls?

My guess is that the élite is finished. They are unable to place their wealth in bitcoin without causing the very demise of the financial system they currently control, and they are equally unable to prevent the 99% of us from doing so — the final outcome of which is that we are about to witness the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of humanity, with the corollary that as their fiat currencies devalue to nothing, the 99% become rich, creating the hyper-wealth imagined in certain academic circles

As a person becomes rich, he is able to make more decisions, to exert his will on the course of events in the world he inhabits. His decisions are, of course, to his own benefit, but by having a greater number of decision makers in the pool, better decisions can be reached i.e. individual greed is evened out to produce the benefit of the commons, which is of course, the lesson bitcoin teaches and that is already embedded in the proof-of-work solution to the Byzantine Generals’ problem that Satoshi Nakamoto (whoever he is, thank you for this breathtaking gift to the world) solved

Our societies have been a great experiment, primarily one of representative democracies as the ensuing organisational structure after the monarchy. As such their apogee has passed and is slowly yielding to other more egalitarian forms of democracy, closer to the Platonic vision of Classical Greece where the nation state fades away to make room for meritocracies

Already we are witnessing the construction of distributed autonomous organisations, prediction markets and other forms of decentralised decision-making and collective knowledge structures, the predecessors of mechanisms that will reshape our civilisation in this 21st century anno domini

To conclude, bitcoin is a harbinger. If you have ears, what you’ll hear are the tidings of our finis mundi — the end of the world as we know it. Not the TEOTWAWKI of the survivalist preppers, who stock food and ammunition in expectation of a Mad Max scenario, but quite the opposite, the end of oppression by the few, the liberation of the human mind to solve the problems already within reach, that the élite prohibits

erick calder

Morning hug

”You didn’t give me a hug” she pouted

”yes I did” I replied

”no you didn’t” the child insisted

”yes I did” I insisted childishly

maybe the issue is we have different ideas of what a hug is. often the ground for conflict is based on differences in our understanding of words and if so, resolution may happen by coming to terms with your terminology.

to prove my point I thus looked up the word for her. here’s what my dictionary states:

hug [huhg] verb (used with object), hugged, hugging
to clasp tightly in the arms, especially with affection; embrace

to my surprise she pointed gleefully: ”see? you didn’t give me a hug, you only used one arm”

seriously? I need two arms to give a proper hug? is the plural arms in the definition categorical or merely exemplary? do I really want to argue this?

I thought I gave her a hug… I held her tightly. with one arm. and to me that was a hug and the dictionary be damned

but winning an argument with a woman is never useful and at the core I did understand the issue. the word-book says especially with affection. a hug can be without affection

that morning I gave her a hug because she asked for it, but it wasn’t with feeling. I was busy writing, thinking, working and her request for a hug was interrupting my flow. so I merely obliged. and she felt that. that lack of feeling.

it was that emotional absence that bothered her. she wanted connection, and I was busy

but affection cannot be commanded, manufactured on the spot to suit the need of another. affection is a liquid that gets squeezed upwards into the heart in Artesian fashion by internal pressures we know little of… it’s something that lifts the bearer, not something intended as a present for the beloved

I gave her a hug but it was obsequious, a gesture of compliance because if I denied her the hug she’d accuse me of denying her hugs for the rest of forever — a charge easily computed to carry too high a cost, within my cost assessment structure

but it didn’t work. it didn’t placate her basic need, which is my whole point of being here. if a lover cannot satisfy the beloved’s need for love, then what’s the point of being there?

that’s what she asks all the time. why be here if there is no feeling?

I hate feelings. they’re such unruly, counter-productive, exasperating forces — and I’ve extirpated them from my life. in that respect I’m in a small minority. to most, emotion is the élan vital of life, the factory of meaning that gives one’s path in life a destination

I have no destination. I’m going nowhere. and I don’t give a shit

but she does, and she minds that I don’t

so perhaps I shouldn’t be in a relationship… it’s what she tells me off and on, echoing the sentiments of past lovers, and perhaps she’s right. but it’s not a choice, no more than anything else is. she showed up in my life. could I have said, no? of course not, that’s ridiculous, not any more than I could say no to getting up in the morning, eating or reading about Ethereum

we don’t have choices in life. it’s a modern myth that we do. but my matriculation in this school of thought places me in yet another tiny minority, and frankly, one that doesn’t help my relationship

I like my relationship. it is a platform that has allowed my evolution in certain directions I deem positive… towards greater balance, perhaps. towards maturity, compassion. towards a greater sense of humanity

our relationship has allowed me to become less machine-like, less isolated, less desolate… and I’m happy with it

but if I make her unhappy?

not all relationships work out — a fact I’ve learned at great cost. and the prevailing zeitgeist says it’s better to cut your losses and get out than to waste your time. better to move on. move onto others, with other problems

but that’s not me. I never cut my losses. I will sink with the ship

erick calder

We are not all equally valuable

I have never subscribed to the American notion of equality — that all men are created equal — which philosophically owes its genesis to that unholy trinity of ideals born in the French Revolution i.e. égalité, liberté et fraternité

to any reasonable observer, the idea is clearly nonsense

neither are we physically equal, nor are we intellectually, emotionally or spiritually the same. in fact, nature seems to have gone to extreme lengths to create such diversity that not even the components we’re built from are equal. yes, we each have a mouth, a nose, two ears and ten toes but no two noses are the same and even our toes differ from each other

these days geneticists make the argument that any two people on the planet differ on the average by only 1 base-pair in a thousand, which means we’re very close. 99.9% close. but close is not equal — these tiny variations make for the difference between a man who gets to live to 90 years of age and one who dies of heart disease at 30, between the man who plays basketball and the one who plays soccer, between men and women

so close is not not even close to equal

and no matter how much we explain away such differences and seek to reconcile our divergent statuses or condition by way of law, good will, or the ideologies of divine union, the fact remains that when we look at another human being, we see that they are not like us; more or less so, depending on who we look at and what we’re predisposed to, but all the same, the distance is undeniable

and yet, as much as I have always defended my disagreement with the American zeitgeist, from one perspective I always felt we are equal: we each get a brain of equal capacity i.e. the capability to rewire itself to suit its environment. for me, the one area where I never questioned equality was in the potential each human being holds. the potential to reason, to become, to observe the world, identify problems, propose solutions, design tests to prove an hypothesis and contribute to the betterment of the species

granted, the problem and solution spaces where we all play in are different as a function of our exposure to experience, but that doesn’t matter because the collective effort constitutes the potential that humanity harbours for progress and no parity is reasonably meaningful in terms of the contribution

however, I’m starting to suspect I may be wrong

to anyone looking it’s clear that we’re not all equal in potential, but we attribute these inequalities to social factors: unequal access to education, racial prejudices that close doors to some from participation in a given sphere of human activity, wealth inequality, familial disintegration, drug addiction, etc.

and we take heart because such grievances may find redress in the restructuring of our social institutions, in the remediation of our caste systems, in our efforts to create and promote a ”greater” consciousness, perhaps delineated along the lines of the Buddhist ideal of compassion

so we comfort ourselves that there is hope yet, for a world where all men are equal in their potential to contribute to the great experiment of humanity in which we all partake

from a personal perspective I have witnessed the struggles of others whose broken lives prevented them from ever realizing their great potential, or at least the potential that I espied in them. a potential unrealised because they were too busy, too stressed earning a living, because decades after a great loss or tragedy they still struggled emotionally to move on, because in their loneliness they wasted years of their lives getting fat and watching the telly, or lived escaping their lives playing video games or taking drugs… because they could have walked if only their feet hadn’t been tangled in the structural issues of our societies

and if we can clearly allocate the loss of potential to a given structural profile, it’s easy to presume one can help. I presumed I could help — by removing obstacles from the path of others, by cutting off the tendrils of belief structures that so tightly wrap themselves around their hearts and minds, fastening them to the life of slow decay to which Pink Floyd refers

it’s not an easy process, helping a person; rather a bit like the performance tuning work we do for database engines wherein resolving one bottleneck merely creates the conditions needed to discover another. but the investment is at least made into a process that’s well understood and known to work, and at the end of the day, though the total cost may have proven to be greater than that originally imagined, there’s still the hope that one will end up with a fully functional and well-behaved system. right?

not quite

with human beings there’s another factor we must consider: light. more specifically, the quality of energy we each possess upon our first arrival on the planet, which in some cultures is attributed to the recent connection with divinity. across time the brilliance of this energy seems to fade. it dies, as Anaïs Nin once said of love, ”of blindness and errors and betrayals. it dies of illness and wounds; it dies of weariness, of witherings, of tarnishings”, and with it, the potential of the individual. with the dying of the light dies the organism itself, and the promise it held, of becoming, overcoming

it therefore follows that an individual’s actual potential is directly related to the amount of light, life, will, left in him/her at any point and that realistically, all entrapments aside, we are not equal in potential

in fact, even discounting the light factor, there are complex structures in our brains that prohibit certain outcomes whilst favouring others, and these outcomes vary from individual to individual. thus the vulgar notion that some people just cannot do math, may be valid

I always believed (to the extent that I allow myself to believe anything), that if my brain could do math (btw, I suck at it) then anyone else could do it, for all brains hold equal potential

but what if I’m wrong?

what if it’s not possible to help another because they simple don’t have what it takes? is our only choice then, to discard human beings as damaged goods after our performance tuning efforts fail? to move onto others with greater potential, perhaps catching them earlier in life before the vines of our cultures bind too tightly and fasten their legs to skepticism, indolence, resignation and inevitable apathy?

Adolph Hitler once said: ”He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future” („Er allein, der die Jugend besitzt, gewinnt die Zukunft“), and though the meaning of his assertion is plain enough, it does hint at the previous conclusion that if we are to make a better world, the low hanging fruit is the children, for there is less damage to contend with, weaker bindings to the ideologies that have entrapped us, and brighter energy to work with

On the Indonesian island of Bali, the autochthonous populations contend that the first three months of a child’s life are sacred on account of the lingering connection to Heaven, whence babies come. Thus during this time the baby is not allowed to touch the ground but instead gets cuddled and held in everyone’s arms — the mother’s, the father’s, their siblings’ and those of their uncles, and grandparents. For three months the child is embraced by the entire village.

This first trimester of life is meant to provide the small angel with a gentle transition to its life on Earth and its end is celebrated by the Balinese with a ceremony called ”Nyabutan”

In my view the world needs to love and protect its children better. to comprehend the extent to which our care for children matters in the context of our survival as a species

and we must tread carefully, for a conclusion that not all men are equal in their potential is an indictment that some individuals are superior in value to others, which easily leads to the policies of the eugenics movement of the 1920s. in our enthusiasm to improve our chances for survival we may come to device metrics for measuring potential and to direct our efforts towards the darkness of extermination that we sadly know so well already

erick calder