The NYRD and the Future

Dear Meta-Humanity,

I know it has been a while since I wrote here, and for all six of my regular readers I want to talk candidly. As you may or may not know I have now started an online magazine called The NYRD. If you have enjoyed my writing I would very much suggest that you check out the site. You will not be disappointed. 

Unlike my current writings, The NYRD will be more focused on breaking down pop culture, and using the language of comics and movies to talk about real-world issues. There will still be the same irrelevance and fun, but maybe part of me is feeling as if it is time to grow up a little (not completely, seven hells, no,) but the books, TV shows, games, and even cartoons that we love are part of a greater whole. They are the myths that inform our lives, the heroes that inspire our decisions, and the lens through which we see the world.

Therefore, it is only natural that we use these stories to interpret what is going on around us. The goal is to engage geeks and nerds to start thinking critically about the culture they love and the issues we should care about. We are going to break down stories and ideas and live up to The NYRD's motto, of being Childishly Intelligent. 

The site will also feature short stories, artwork, podcasts, videos, and tons more of user generated content, at least I hope. As of right now I am still struggling in finding willing writers and artists. That is why I am asking you, my readers, and this community as a whole, to check out The NYRD, but don't just passively read the articles. Engage with them. Comment, Like, Share, Retweet, Bake a Cake (I'm not sure how that last one works, but I'm a little hungry.) Join the forum and start talking about what is on your mind or what you want to see us write about.

Most importantly, if you have anything to say or share or talk about, submit it to submissions@thenyrd.com. I am looking for your writing, your artwork, you cartoons, your graphics. This site is about us and our community with one another, and it should not just be my voice that is heard. 

Quite frankly, I am asking for help from people who I know are passionate and talented. This community and the geek community at large is filled with amazing and incredible people. If you feel like you have nothing to say, then submit a short story. If you do not think you can write, than give a piece of artwork for our gallery. Heck, if that's not your forte generate a meme for us. We will also be expanding into podcasts and YouTube videos real soon. If you have any talent in those areas, I want to hear from you. Whatever you submit we will promote it, through social media and though our website. 

I have always been a writer, for as far back as I can remember. In the beginning it was a way to play with action figures in my mind, to create characters and adventures. That is still true, but over the years it has become something so much more. Writing and stories are the ways I engage in the world and I could never picture myself doing anything else. Maybe that is why I have always been a lover of movies and books, of heroes and villains, and anything that ignited my imagination. Yet, I am getting older and I feel a responsibility to not just my beloved fictional worlds, but to our real one as well.

I cannot fly and punch meteors from the sky. I do not travel time and space in a blue box. I do not have magic or a ring of power, and my destiny was never foretold on some ancient scroll. I am only me, and the only power I have is this, right here. I can string a bunch of mediocre words together, so regardless, I am going to keep using that as best I can to goof off, to be weird, to entertain, and maybe even to inform along the way, but with your help we can do something amazing.

All I am asking is for you to take a step, and join me on this journey. No one can do it alone, and any adventure is always more fun when you have friends along to help.

This will be my last post on this site. I want to especially thank you for your readership and I hope to see you again in the future at www.thenyrd.com. Also check us out on Facebook, Twitter, or Google+.

Sincerely,

Adam J. Brunner 

Intelligently Childish

Premier nerd, (and a personal hero of mine) Simon Pegg recently gave an interview where he talked about the effects of geek and nerd culture. "Before Star Wars, the films that were box-office hits were The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Bonnie and Clyde, and The French Connection – gritty, amoral art movies... Then suddenly the onus switched over to spectacle and everything changed … I don’t know if that is a good thing."

He went on to add, "Obviously I’m very much a self-confessed fan of science fiction and genre cinema but part of me looks at society as it is now and just thinks we’ve been infantilised by our own taste. Now we’re essentially all consuming very childish things – comic books, superheroes. It is a kind of dumbing down, in a way, because it’s taking our focus away from real-world issues. Films used to be about challenging, emotional journeys or moral questions that might make you walk away and re-evaluate how you felt about … whatever. Now we’re walking out of the cinema really not thinking about anything, other than the fact that the Hulk just had a fight with a robot."

The backlash against his words was almost immediate, because you know... the Internet, and the uglier side of nerd culture in general. However, this time I must admit that I felt like grabbing a digital pitchfork and joining in on the cacophony of Twitter rage, but then I had to stop and step back. Why did I feel so personally hurt by his words? And surprisingly the pain was personal. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that geek culture has very few true-blue celebrities, and we tend to put them up on a pedestal, Seth Green, Nathon Fillion, Simon Pegg, etc. So hearing those words from one of our more vaunted namesakes hurts. It's like hearing a harsh truth from your father who is telling you to do as he says but not as he does.

However, the real fact is that it is a harsh truth. First off, Simon Pegg, as much as we want to put him on a pedestal of lightsabers and starships, is only human. He is fully in his right to have his doubts, his personal struggles, and even a crisis of consciousness or two about the work he has dedicated his life too. We all have moments of doubts, and he is entitled to his own. Secondly, he may not be wrong, which may also explain the backlash. People don't like accepting hard criticism, even when it is done with the best of intentions.

With the widespread appeal of nerd culture through comic conventions, blockbuster movies, and TV shows, there has been a neglect of adult-problems and real-world issues. You don't need to look any further than Star Trek: Into Darkness to see how far the once lauded and highly intelligent Star Trek franchise has fallen from its intellectual roots. We spend our time talking about the accuracy of Batman's voice or we nitpick how close Game of Thrones stays to the books, but we rarely talk about the issues that face our world today, political elections, Middle-East turmoil, global warming. It's easier to watch Captain America punch a Nazi than try to understand the soci-economic-politcal justifications and ramifications of facism. This dumbing down of, not just our society, but nerd culture in general (again I refer you to Star Trek: Into Darkness) is a natural outcropping of our culture's growing popularity, and that is also important to remember.

Bonnie and Clyde made more than $50 million, and at the
time was considered one of the most controversial films in
Hollywood due to its depiction of sex and violence, but
it has largely been credited as being a film that changed the
way Hollywood did movies. (Sex and violence sells tickets.)

Now, I do want to get one thing straight before I receive any angry Tweets of my own, (they're mostly from my mother,) Simon Pegg isn't entirely wrong but he isn't entirely right either. There are still plenty of adult movies making money, American Sniper and The Imitation Game, both did well, and movies like Interstellar and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, made more than subtle attempts to talk to something more intelligent than just explosions. And as for the movies he mentions, The Godfather was top at the box office in 1972, followed closely by the (two amoral and gritty real-life movies:) the Poseidon Adventure and What's Up Doc. The French Connection was beat out by Fiddler on the Roof, and just edged out, James Bond in Diamonds Are Forever. Lastly, Taxi Driver never broke the top fifteen in highest grossing films in 1976. Number one that year was Rocky, and number two was To Fly!, which was one of the first movies ever shot in IMAX. (I wonder if the ticket was double the price.) The spectacle and infantile-ness has always been there. These days it may be superheroes as opposed to cowboys, or space operas compared to sports movies, but the general idea remains the same. I will admit that technology has allowed the "genre" film to snowball like never before, but the bottom line for Hollywood remains the same, money.

More to the point, it is tempting to blame nerd culture for making the world more childish, but the world was always kind of childish. If its not comics, its celebrity culture, reality TV, sports, and even religion. In the fifties it was radio programs and shopping sprees. In Roman times it was gladiators and chariot racing. The movies Simon Pegg holds up as "artsy:" The French Connection, The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Bonnie and Clyde... do you notice a connection between them? They had a lot of violence in them, and if you don't think that was part of the appeal that put butts in the seats, than you have never met another human being before. His argument also discounts movies like Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, and King Kong. Those movies were just as much about spectacle as Star Wars, but the argument also seems to imply that none of these movies have anything to teach us. As if they have no inherent or real-world value of their own, and that is just wrong.

Star Wars was mythology (then commercialism, but that came late.) There is a lesson in there about growing up, confronting challenges, finding spirituality. Its not all laser swords and impossible outerspace dog fights. The original Star Trek inspired people to dream and believe in the possibilities of science. Superman (when not directed by Zac Synder) gives us hope and an example to try and live our lives by. I would argue that these lessons are just as important as any lesson found in Taxi Driver or in the study of the Israel-Palestine conflict. A lot of these stories and these passions, at least for me, become the basis of how I see the world.

The real trick then becomes to use that basis as way to inform the world. Yes, nerd rage is real, but I would argue that if you go to Comic Con or the opening of any new geek-culture movie you will find a society of people who are intelligent, peaceful, and willing to help. We need to turn those impulses and the message of who we are into something greater. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that geekdom could save cinema and popular culture from its own infantile self. We have the tools, the stories, and the understanding to make our summer blockbusters and our smash TV hits more intelligent and more engaging with real-world issues.

Pictured: A female scientist respected for her mind.

Historically, fantasy and especially science fiction have always challenged our beliefs, given us a lens to understand society, and given us license to dream about a better future. The irony of this, (and personally I think some of where these feelings are stemming from for Simon Pegg,) is that Star Trek was always the one thing we could hold up as the pinnacle of this idea. The original series tackled everything from the Vietnam War to the counter-culture movement, and the more recent shows have continued that trend with varying degrees of success, (I have been slowly re-watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and even though I have seen them all before I always find myself amazed by some of the poignant stories they tell and the new lights they cast on problems we are still having today,) but that changed in 2009. The rebooted Star Trek movie became more about popcorn, lens flare, and explosions, a trend that the second movie continued, only with less success. Star Trek: Into Darkness had the perfect opportunity to talk about the ideas of security versus liberty and blew it, (but I will stop there, because I have ranted on that subject before.) Simon Pegg has been tapped to rewrite the newest Star Trek installment, and had this to say:

"They had a script for Star Trek that wasn’t really working for them. I think the studio was worried that it might have been a little bit too Star Trek-y... Avengers, which is a pretty nerdy, comic-book, supposedly niche thing, made $1.5 billion dollars. Star Trek: Into Darkness made half a billion, which is still brilliant, but it means that, according to the studio, there’s still $1 billion worth of box office that don’t go and see Star Trek. And they want to know why."

The Millennials are growing up, and we are taking our childish culture with us. There is no stopping that, but now we need to use that culture and the lessons it has taught us to change the world and tackle the problems that are out there. Superhero movies don't need to be mutually exclusive with real-world parallels, in fact the best ones aren't. Captain America: Winter Soldier worked so well because it became a parable about America's growing police state, and Captain America: Civil War will probably hit similar notes about privacy versus public safety. These blockbuster movies can be more than spectacle. They can be smarter, and also successful. They can inform national discussion and spark new ideas in the next generation, but it is up to us to make sure that nerd culture and our society in general are not dumbed down in the name of opening week profits.

I think a lot of Simon Pegg's frustration is coming from his process with Star Trek. "Sometimes [I] feel like I miss grown-up things, and I honestly thought the other day that I’m gonna retire from geekdom." 

Personally, I don't want to see him go, if only because he is saying things that I think we need to hear. We have to make sure nerd culture finds a balance between smart and entertaining. It's okay to be childish, as long as you do it intelligently, and maybe that means we need to take a look at our own nerdiness and accept that we might have to make some changes for the better. Either way, it is a worthwhile topic to talk about. So I ask everyone on the Twitter-verse to lay off. These statements should be the start of a discussion, not the end of an angry rant. The last thing we need is to drive another of our ranks from the conversation.

Reviews No One Will to Read: Age of Ultron

I finally got the privilege of seeing Avengers: Age of Ultron, and the more I read on the Internet (which is always my first mistake,) the more I find myself in the minority. So I have decided to pile my opinion on the heap of already stinking pile of dead opinions, like some glorious corpse pyramid, and write a review. I also want to warn you, right now, that THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD. (So if ye be behind the times and have not seen tharr film than ye best be shoving off land-lover for shores that... I can't keep the pirate thing up.) Come back after you have seen the movie.

I am going to start out by saying that I really really enjoyed the movie. However, I think that had more to do with the fact that with such big blockbuster movies I am really anticipating, I do my best to avoid any sort of speculation or possible spoilers. (I learned my lesson after Phantom Menace.) I even go so far as to restrict the trailers I see on the Internet so as to not ruin too much. I want to go in with as clean of a slate as possible. (Granted this has hurt me in cases such as with your Green Lanterns, but has proved generally a positive experience.) With that said, avoiding all knowledge of the movie (and obviously I have very extensive comic knowledge and lore to draw from,) is almost impossible. However, I believe that Age of Ultron hit all the strokes I was looking for: it was darker, filled with heroes, did a little setup for future projects, but mostly it was a fun Avengers movie, and I think that last part is important to remember.

A lot of people seem disappointed that this movie did not do more to raise the stakes for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. First of all, I would argue that it did, but secondly I would also argue that was not its job. This may be the eleventh Marvel movie in the MCU, but it is also only the second Avengers movie, and I think that is the better way to look at it. We all know the wheels are going to be coming off in Captain America: Civil War. Tony and Steve are going to be at each others' throats, but that conflict is not going to have any impact if there is not emotion more behind it, which I think AOU help set up.

The first Avengers movie was an origin story, the forming of the Avengers. And it was fun and great and big and explodey, but we did not get any time to see the team as a "team." This movie gave us that opportunity to see them just be Avengers and interact as friends and teammates. At the beginning of this movie we are made aware of the fact that the Avengers have been operating together long enough that they have battle maneuvers and code signals worked out. Tony has even made Avengers Tower for them and provides them with financial and technical support. That is great but as a member of the audience, I want to be able to see that dynamic. I want to see the Avengers being the Avengers and I think that is what this movie aimed to deliver. We have to see the bonds between Stark and Rogers, the missed chance between Widow and Banner, the glistening pectorals of Thors... What I got distracted there... Anyway, we can't just take the movie's word for it that these things exist. We need to see Captain America and Iron Man respect each other and have a friendship. This movie gave us the quiet moments we needed to understand the dynamic between the team, but it also sowed enough distrust among them to plant the seed for the coming conflict.

I was a little disappointed to see Quicksilver die, not so much that I enjoyed the character or the actor, but that I think the team is missing that hothead dynamic, which was so often filled by Quicksilver and Hawkeye in the comics. Still it was no real big loss, (and I suspect it has as much to do with not wanting to compete with the X-Men's Quicksilver,) but I am also way more excited about the possibilities that the appearance of the Vision have opened up. With the Mind Gem in his forehead I think there is a good possibility he will be playing a role that is more akin to Adam Warlock when it comes to the Infinity War, which I think is going to be a good fit. I was also excited for the inclusion of the MCU's B-list heroes (which in this context looks like it, unfortunately, stands for Black,) War Machine and Falcon, and their promotion at the end of the movie to full fledged Avengers. Falcon in particular is one of my personal favorite heroes and I am very happy to to see him finally get a little due. The creation of the Avengers training facility also gives later movies a device for introducing new heroes as Avengers Trainees.

It's funny because it Biblical.

As a side note, the cast list for Captain America: Civil War was announced last week, and it very much looks like the movie is going to be Avengers 2.5. That will be the movie that is going to take all the team dynamics and setup of this movie and really blow everything apart. However, I am disappointed to see that Daredevil was not on the cast list. I would have liked to see a tie-in with the Man Without Fear and the Civil War storyline. (After all, in the comics Daredevil has one of the coolest four panels of the entire crossover event.) There still might be hope that he could be in the movie as a last minute addition, however I was also disappointed to see that Phil Coulson was no where to be seen in AOU. I thought at least a cameo appearance on the helicarrier could have been a possibility.

Maybe it was cut for time. Joss Whedon apparently wanted to make a three and a half hour movie, but had to cut out a lot of the Thor storyline and even some scenes at the Barton farmhouse. (Can I buy that uncut version anywhere? Seriously, I'll pay for it.) This also bring me to my last point. I am a feminist in case you never realized, and I have no problem with the way Black Widow was treated in this movie.

A lot of people are complaining that she was set up as nothing but a love interest for Hulk. I would argue that is not true at all. If anything Banner was setup as a love interest for her. I saw the two more as a juxtaposition of one another. Natasha was not wrong when she called herself a monster, but the only difference between the former soviet assassin and the raging anger monster is that Banner can't hide his green side as well as Black Widow can. Even when Widow was captured by Ultron, she was never a damsel in distress. In fact, she is the reason the rest of the team was able to find Ultron's base of operations and stop him from enacting his final plan. Widow once again seems to prove that she is among the most capable of the Avengers, not a secretary or a love interest, but a full-fledged member of the team.

In fact, as it was expressed to me by a very good female friend of mine, "The only thing I find offensive about Black Widow is that she can keep her hair looking so perfect." To which I would add, so can Thor. This controversy is a non-controversy, except for the fact that it drove Joss Whedon from social media. Good job, morons. Here is a man who is both a fan and a creator, one of the only people that actually listens to fans and tries to make quality entertainment for us, and you drove him out of the conversation... *slow clap*

Age of Ultron was good. It was a good Avengers movie, it was a good Marvel movie, and it even manages to erect some bridges for what is to come. It is also going to make all the money... like all the money in existence. I have already seen it, but I would not be surprised if I wind up back in a seat on some lazy Saturday morning to watch it again. I rate it 9,000 stars, which means nothings... much like this review. I'm just ranting... go home... go away... I'm done.

I'm going to give it Disney on this one. Without there help this trailer could not have been possible.

Humans Need Not Apply

"Yes, I'm her about the exterminator job."

I've been gone for a few weeks and in my time away I have been looking into some interesting ideas about what is coming down the old proverbial pipeline. A lot of what I have been investigating stems from a CGP Grey video, which I recently led an educational discussion on: Humans Need Not Apply. (I will put the video down at the end of this post if you want to check it out, and I recommend you do.) I have also been doing a lot of reading on the subject by Andrew McAfee (You know that guy who keeps claiming you computer is not as safe as it could be.) Well beside designing anti-virus software he is also a respected MIT engineer and his book The Second Machine Age is an interesting read.

Now what does all this amount to? If you listen to these sources and others than you may find yourself getting pretty terrified because basically the economy will collapse sometime in the next twenty to fifty years. Robots, automation, and software are getting to the point where they can do our jobs better, faster, more accurate, and (more importantly) cheaper. To take an example from CGP Grey, let's look at self-driving cars.

They are already real and they already work. There are estimates that self-driving cars will be commonplace by 2025 and will be almost ubiquitous by 2030. For me that means I can read a book as my car drives me down to the Jersey Shore. For truck drivers, bus drivers, cab drivers, construction equipment operators, garbage truck drivers, and more like them, it means they will be unemployable. Not only will they be unemployed, they will have a skill set that is no longer required in the economy. Conservatives estimates put current transportation jobs as employing a little over 3.5 million people in the USA alone, but this new technology could cost as many as 10 million people their jobs. Go even further and look at the auto-parts industry, which employs almost another 1 million people who will have to be downsized. Other estimates say that this new trend is going to drop the number of cars on the road from 245 million to just 2.4 million vehicles. (Because why would I even need to buy a car when I can use an app on my phone to send for an Uber-Auto-Vehicle to transport me to my destination at cost of 50 cents per mile, and not even have to tip.) The auto-insurance industry, the rental car industry, the used car dealers, even the parking lot industry, are all going to take hits and lose employees. That is a lot of people out of work, and its just the tip of the iceberg.

Baxter the Robot can be taught any manual repetitive job, all with less cost,
less down time, and less physical comedy than you average Lucile Ball.

If you watch the video below you will see that there is a lot of new (and working technology) that already exists that will make our jobs obsolete. I am not talking about I Love Lucy assembly-line type of jobs either, but those kinds too. (Note to self: write a story about about two mischievous robot wives who always get into hijinks at the expense of their robot husbands, and one is Cuban... for some reason.) Blue collar, white collar, professional, and even creative jobs are all at risk. There is software that can take care of payroll, budgeting, advertising, and even human resource problems. There are computers that can answer the phone, sound human, and be responsive enough to solve people's problems. And that fake story and the Lucile-tron 9000... well a computer can write a better story, literally. They have computer programs that write stories, news articles, and even compose music. As for doctors and lawyers, they have an app for that. (I'm not even being flippant.) With the advent of wearable biometric technology (FitBits are only the beginning,) you are no longer going to need to have regular physician check-ups. Your phone will be able to tell you everything from your cholesterol to your blood type. It will warn you of an impending heart attack or diagnose that sniffle you woke up with. You may still have to see an actual specialized doctor for serious issues, but general practitioners will eventually become a thing of the past. Similiarly there will still be lawyers, but all the grunt work of law will be done by computers, not interns or pre-law students, or even Charlie who has failed to make partner for thirty years. Less lawyers, less doctors, less teachers, less policeman, janitors, grocery store clerks... less everyone.

Worst of all, these newly unemployed people will have no where to go. Conservative estimates put unemployment rates in this new economy at 20%, but it could run as high as 75% in the long term. What the hell are we going to do? Most of the sources I have used for my research don't give any solutions, just problems. So, I am going to talk solutions, and you may not like them...

Solution: We do nothing. Anything we try to do to bolster a human driven economy over an automated one is only going to delay the inevitable and wind up perpetuating the idea that humans have no purpose but to work, which in my opinion is a dangerous and stupid idea. Think about it. Why the hell do we need employment? We work forty or fifty years at jobs we barely tolerate and what do we get out of it? Satisfaction? (Maybe if you are lucky.) Even worse we condition ourselves to believe that it is our employment that makes us useful. In a lot of cases we make work to make jobs to make more work to make even more jobs. How many people do you know who have retired from work and have no idea what to do with themselves? It is because they have been conditioned to think that they need to work and they have never experienced a world where that was never true. Jobs are like prison walls. Its like what Red said that one time, "First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That's institutionalized."

With C3PO doing all of Luke's tricky translation work he was free to live
the luxurious life of a moisture farmer/rebel/Jedi Knight.

But it was not always like that. In our hunter-gather days estimates put the work day at anywhere between four and six hours, (of course 25-30% of hunter-gathers also died by homicide, but that's a whole other issue.) The point is that we have to ask ourselves if the purpose of human life is to sit behind a desk, earn a wage, pay into a pension, and wait for death once you retire? Twenty years ago, futurist believed that we would only be working about a 25 hour work week, because we would have things like 24-hour access to our messages, devices that would let us work from anywhere, and computers that could take a lot of the necessary grunt work out of our lives... You know what? They were right about everything, except the length of our work week. It stayed at 40-hours, not because of necessity, but because of fear and tradition. It is arguable that our current 40-hour work week does more harm than good, yet we cling to it because we believe that is the way things have always been done. Its the same for when I say, "In the future we may not have to work a full day or at all," that you have an instinctual spike of dread or fear... "How can that be?" you wonder. "What will we all do?" The short answer is: innovate and create. The long answer is: the impossible.

I understand there will be economical difficulties, but products will be cheaper and faster, and probably more disposable, but that doesn't mean all the problems will be solved. Some people have thrown out the idea of a minimum guaranteed income, a subsidized wage given to every adult after they turn eighteen. To a lot of people that sounds like Marxism, but the truth is, if we find ourselves in a world  with 75% unemployment, welfare and unemployment is going to basically become a minimum income. Then it will run out and people will still not be able to find jobs, because there will be literally no jobs to be had. So our economical thinking will have to be adjusted. Communism never worked because people like stuff, and there is no reason that changes in this new economy or that people can't make additional money on top of a minimum income. With all the free time I would expect people to use it to innovate, discover, and create. Now we won't all become famous actors or writers or software designers or scientist, but people will be free to follow their passions. If you don't believe me check out games like DayZ or Eve Online.

Both games are basically MMORPG's where the point of the game is that there is no point in the game. Sure there is survival and looting and leveling, but there are no involved storylines or epic multi-part quests. They are games where people are pretty much left to their own devices, and when you let that happen, you discover two rules: A.) Humans can be complete dicks; B.) Humans can create some pretty amazing things. There are fake multinational corporations that have arisen in Eve that are completely player driven. In DayZ players started a Hunger Games-like event that has become so popular it is now broadcast live on Twitch and other sports-gaming sites.

Yes, Jimmy Fallon, one day there will be robots doing that
job too, because of course there will be.

When left with time and resources people create (and yes sometimes they destroy because refer back to rule A.) In Star Trek, the Federation, is a society built not upon commerce or greed but upon discovery and the maximum potential of humanity. They are not driven by the need for objects or money, because why would they be? They don't need or want anything. You want ice cream? Boom... replicator makes you ice cream. You want to go to the beach? Boom... teleporter. You want the latest fashion? Download them and replicate them... Boom... The only thing left to them to get excited about or hungry for is discovery and creation. Art, music, poetry, and science are the driving factors of the Federation. I am not saying that is going to happen in the next fifty years, (or even at all,) here on Earth, but I am also not saying that it is not a worthwhile goal. It may seem overly optimistic, but when I think of the future I would rather believe in optimism, because even if we fall short we may still get something truly unimaginable.

So maybe it is time we stop being terrified of a world with high unemployment, and wonder what possibilities it can bring. In a world where everything is cheaper and abundant (including free time) maybe we can find a new paradigm for the human experience. Maybe we can create something amazing.

CGP Grey: Humans Need Not Apply

High Scores: A Classroom Model

When I am not writing or out fighting crime dressed as a large marsupial (I'm Koalaman,) I spend my days working in the field of education, and I am fascinated by the way education has changed and how it hasn't. (I have written about it before.) The more I have observed and the more I have researched I have become convinced that if there is a way to fix an broken classroom system it is through the use of video games. Now, I know that sounds crazier than anthropomorphic animal starfighter pilots, but bear with me, because video games and the systems upon which they are built offers a look inside the minds of how students expect reward and advancement.

Most video games, but especially RPGs, are often based around a leveling system. The higher you advance the more skills you acquire and the more perks you get to choose from. It's how a Level 1 character who swings a sword becomes a BA knight dressed in Dark Archaic Armor and wields the +2 Sword of Blighted Indifference. This system of work and reward makes a certain amount of logical sense, and it offers a tangible feeling of accomplishment. All of this is important for a generation of students that have grown up as graphic learners, who are better multi-taskers, and have a high degree of skill and expectation for customized experiences, (through phones, computers, etc.) What most students get instead, is a stagnant linear model of expectations and punishment (not reward,) built upon an ailing factory model. Students who feel more excitement over getting a new badge in Call of Duty rather than getting a passing Calculus grade, feel that way because only one offers them a tangible feeling of accomplishment. Both (could be argued) are just as useless to the student in the long run, but why does unlocking a few digital pixels feel more rewarding than learning a new way of mathematical thinking? Most people tend to blame that on the students, but what if we instead blame the way students are graded.

Grades are one of the most basic concepts of running a classroom, but they are also one of the most detrimental. In America, students are graded on a scale of A, B, C, D, and F (or E), with various "+" and "-" gradients thrown in. Each grade corresponds to a percentage. A = 90% - 100%, B = 80% - 89%, etc..  An E/F is a failure, an A is an outstanding grade, and a C is meant to be average, but that's not really what they mean to modern students. Maybe in the happy days of Fonzie a C was considered acceptably average, but what you see in modern times is that that has stopped being the case. A student who now gets a C, sees that grade as a failure. A grade of A has become the new standard for average, the new measure of success, but it is unreasonable. A and B are meant to be above average for a reason. They cannot and should not be attained by the majority of the class. However, this means that the majority of the class no longer thinks they are doing well if they get a C or even sometimes a B, which leads to frustration, anxiety, and even grade inflation on the part of the teacher. So a modern C student no longer sees himself as succeeding. He or she, see themselves as a failure, unable to achieve some inflated standard. So, of course, they go home and play Xbox, because at least there they can achieve that new badge or that new camo-skin. That is where their feeling of reward comes from. Put in enough work and they can achieve what they want. So why can't they see that in the classroom?

I will put points in Homework Passes,
Pizza Parties, and my Ice Spells.

The first thing that needs to change in this new model of learning and classroom management is the grading system. The A - F scale is not working. (I will give you a moment to get your head around that idea... good?) What we need is an advancement system, like the ones found in a video game. With a percentage system, students automatically see 100% as normal, which makes a certain amount of sense. (I need my health bar at 100%. I have to fill my stamina bar up 100% to be ready to go on the next mission, etc.) Anything less than 100% is a subtraction from normal. You lose health. You lose mana. You lose grades. We need a system that builds students up from lower levels, like experience points. So instead of a test being graded on 100% scale where you lose points for incorrect answer, what if tests were graded on an experience scale where you were awarded points for correct answers. A student who completes their homework might get 312 experience points, and 600 experience points for that science project they turned in, or 420 points for that quiz they did yesterday. The best part is, for the teacher, the current system would not even have to be revamped that much. Make each correct quiz answer, homework, project, paper, etc, worth a certain amount of points that adds to an overall total. If at the end of the year a student needs to achieve 10,000 points to get the equivalent of an A in the class, than you don't even need to radically adjust current numbers for assignments. As long as you get the student to see that their accomplishments are earning points, instead of the fact that their mistakes are decreasing his or her percentage.

Secondly, a teacher should try to use those points to mean something more than grades. I am talking about an actual leveling system with perks and rewards. If the overall points needed in a class is 10,000, what if a teacher were to go further, and divide that number up into actual levels, say 1,000 points for each level. When a student reaches Level 1, maybe they then get a choice between receiving one of three perks, like choices on an RPG skill tree. The perks could include anything from a one-time pass to get out of a homework assignment, to additional time to take a quiz, to even a one time chance to get double XP on a test of their choice. Teachers could even break this down further into an actual tree-system where you need to attain lower-level perks first to really get at the good stuff on certain skill branches.

This would not only give students road markers for achievement as they move through the year, but small and tangible goals to keep them motivated. A lot of times it is easier to think ahead to the next level rather than to the overall goal of the end of the year grade. "I can't wait till I hit Level 3 in Mrs. Smith's class. I'm going to get the perk that lets me move my seat." Most sixteen year old students don't understand the value of the education they are getting, so telling them that they need to take math because it will get them into college or be useful "someday in the real world" does not always work. Giving them small incremental perks, however, is something they understand well. It will give them the motivation they need to get to the next plateau, and this system also gives teachers a more effective tool of discipline. They could deduct experience points or even award negative modifiers, causing students to take less experience for a day or on an assignment, thus denying them their sense of accomplishment and delaying their next level a little while longer. After all, the experience points would not be just grades, but could be used as a gauge of general progress in the class as a whole.

There is a teacher with the right idea.

Lastly, let's talk about "grinding." Anyone who has played WoW or any other MMORPG fully understands the tedium and necessity of grinding. It means standing in a field killing spiders or rabbits for four hours as you watch your experience bar slowly increase, and I don't see why there is no reason it shouldn't be allowed in the classroom. After all, grinding in a classroom setting is basically doing extra math problems or working on some tedious assignment to get a little extra credit. Obviously the "Grind Assignments" would be worth less experience points than regular assignments, but if a student accomplishes enough of them, they will slowly work their way up to the next level. It will also help reinforce the lessons that have already been learned. The essence of grinding is to take on a challenge you know you can easily beat and then repeat that over and over again. Why can't a student grab a basics skills sheet and do that for a small amount of experience points? A teacher can add more advanced skill sheets to the "Grind Pile" with older ones being worth less and less XP as the school year goes on and with newer ones becoming worth more. These would not be assignments, just extra tasks students could accomplish to keep their experience meter moving.

I know there will be many people who might be skeptical of this new idea, just as I realize it will work better for certain classes than others, such as Math and Language. Even though it might be harder to implement in English or Social Studies classes, that does not mean it would be impossible. These are only some of the ideas that are out there. A truly creative and dedicated teacher could easily come up with more, and adapt this idea to their learning environment. The real essence is the experience point system, but you can expand on that anyway you want. What about a loot system, where you get pens and pencils, or even hats and t-shirts. What about a friendly PvP or Arena system? What about a raid system where students collaborate and share XP to take on larger tasks? The possibilities are endless, and best of all, it is a learning system based upon a system we already know works to reach students. It is a system they instinctively understand. So instead of decrying the evils of the gaming industry, maybe its time we took a page from their books to patch some of the bugs in an ailing school system.

It's All Geek to Me

"Meh."

Three letters that express so much indifference, laziness, mild disappointment, and a general malaise to one's own existence, but there is also much more to that small interjection. It proves a point that language is not static. It morphs (like a verbal giant mechazoid,) with each new generation, each new year, and even with each new Netflix original.

In case you are unaware, Meh is a term that was coined by The Simpsons all the way back in 1994, when a librarian used it to react to the fact that voting records weren't classified in Springfield. Since then it has entered our vernacular as a dictionary-definable word. That was not The Simpsons' only contribution to English language, Cromulent and Craptacular both entered our collective vocabulary after being featured on the cultural juggernaut of a show, as well.

Language is an integral part of the human experience. Even those without the ability to speak or hear still engage in the use of language through other means. As such, the way we speak inherently affects the way we see and talk about the world around us, but that is not a one way street. The way we see the world and our interactions with it also affects the way we speak and talk about things. Additionally, our cultural experiences and understandings also influence our word choices, speech patterns, and other linguistic idiosyncrasies. This is nothing new either, our language (regardless of what language you speak) has been changing and evolving ever since our great x 10,000 grandfather grunted about someone not picking up after themselves.

I mean who leaves their dirty loincloth just lying around on the cave floor. "What were you raised in a barn?" (Which of course would mean that not only had you managed to move beyond the hunter-gather phase of civilization, but you had developed complex ideas of animal husbandry, crop rotation, feed storage, and construction techniques utilizing lumber.)

Realistically, cavemen would not have used the phrase What were you raised in a barn? I am sure they had other culturally relevant phrases to use when insulting their off-spring about their untidiness. I have no idea what those phrases were, but I am almost certain they had them, because humans shape our language with allusion and metaphor. We use our understanding of the world to influence the way we talk to one another, and I am not just talking about cliched lines that your grandfather might toss out.

For example: Toxic. The word traces its origins back to the Greek root-word toxon, which literally means a bow, the instrument you would use to shoot arrows from. That seems like an odd word to evolve into something that basically means poison, but not when you consider the story of Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra. The hydra's blood was poisonous, and after Hercules managed to kill the beast he dipped his arrows in its blood. He then used the poisoned arrows throughout the rest of his adventures. So in ancient Greek, saying something was toxic literally meant you were saying something was "from the bow of Hercules."

To them it was an allusion, a cultural idiom based around a story. The word then evolved into Latin and eventually into English to mean poisonous, with the original cultural reference lost to the ages, (unless you Google it.) More to the point, this is not the collective lexicon being influenced by just a person's direct experience with the world, but by a myth. Similarly calling someone Superman or Sherlock are two words not based on experience but on stories, mythologies in their own right, yet they are used commonly in everyday speech. Sticking with the comic book theme, Kryptonite, is literally a fictional rock that weakens Superman, but we use it in passing to mean someone's weakness, their Achilles' Heel.

The ancient Greek hero Achilles was invulnerable in every spot, except for his heel, the spot where his mother held him when she dipped him into the River Styx. Most people don't think of that story or need to explain it when they use the term Achilles Heel. People just understand what it means, because language is more than just sounds we make with our mouth holes. It's a social contract we all enter into, and it's not just about common words that represent ideas. Language is about nuance and even a little poetry. Yes, you can say, "I am not great at Math," or you can say "Math is my Kryptonite." It is more expressive, and it automatically gives the listener an intense and personal understanding of what you meant.

This means that culture (and especially nerd culture,) our stories, movies, comics, literature, etc, are all ways we absorb the world. They paint the picture that we hold up to compare to the people and places that surround us. We construct our world based upon all our influences, just like the Ancient Greeks. We do not have gods, we have superheroes. We do not have traditions, we have pop culture, but it all amounts to the same. It is a lens through which our lives and our language becomes filtered. Our shared stories give us a sort of cultural shorthand. We call someone a Newb or Noob if they suck, we say something has been Nerfed, if it was made softer or easier. Words like Frak and Khalessi enter into our vocabulary because, in some ways, they are more descriptive than saying F*ck or Barbarian Queen. Some will stick and some will fall off, proving to be nothing more than a fad, but they do enter into our thinking and our world views. We experience the world not only through the things we see and touch but through the stories that we tell, because language is so much more than pointing and grunting. It is so much more than mundane observations or utilitarian sound.

As Stephen Fry once said, "Language is my whore, my mistress, my wife, my pen-friend, my check-out girl. Language is a complimentary moist lemon-scented cleansing square or handy freshen-up wipette. Language is the breath of God, the dew on a fresh apple, it's the soft rain of dust that falls into a shaft of morning sun when you pull from an old bookshelf a forgotten volume of erotic diaries; language is the faint scent of urine on a pair of boxer shorts, it's a half-remembered childhood birthday party, a creak on the stair, a spluttering match held to a frosted pane, the warm wet, trusting touch of a leaking nappy, the hulk of a charred Panzer, the underside of a granite boulder, the first downy growth on the upper lip of a Mediterranean girl, cobwebs long since overrun by an old Wellington boot."

Language is also as Lisa Simpson once said, "Meh."

Not All Those Who Sonder Are Lost

Sonder n. The realization that each random passerby is living a life as vivid and complex as your own—populated with their own ambitions, friends, routines, worries and inherited craziness—an epic story that continues invisibly around you like an anthill sprawling deep underground, with elaborate passageways to thousands of other lives that you’ll never know existed, in which you might appear only once, as an extra sipping coffee in the background, as a blur of traffic passing on the highway, as a lighted window at dusk.

The above definition comes from the site: The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows, and I think it might be my newest favorite site. Sonder is a realization, an epiphany that comes when you see that the guy who sells you coffee every morning has a picture of his family, or when that homeless man on the corner tells you that he graduated from Yale and served as an Army Ranger.  Now, with the impending possible discovery of parallel universes, thanks to the LHC, we may all have to acknowledge that we are not as truly remarkable and unique as we might sometimes like to believe. We tend to break the people in our lives (especially those on our peripheral) down to base stereotypes, unchanging and small boxes that allow us to view them in one light and then forget that they existed the moment they are gone. Sonder comes when those people surprise us and break out of the roles we assigned for them. Before that, they were just background characters, extras in the movie that is your life, your story.

It is interesting how stories, movies, plays, etc give us the language to talk  about this phenomenon. We are the main characters in our lives. Our story is about us, we see antagonists and challenges and plot twists wherever we look. We all see a cast of supporting characters, (our friends and family.) We understand that they are complex, but maybe not as complex of characters as we are. Then there are the extras, little more than set dressing to the happenings of our lives, but to them, we're the dressing. We become that guy standing on the subway, wearing the black jacket, or that girl walking down the street in uncomfortable shoes. More to the point that is all we will ever be in their stories, one-dimensional creatures. A few pixels in the background of a picture they took once. A voiceless body on the streets at night. All our problems, our thoughts, our wishes, our hopes, and fears, and loves, are nothing to them. Even celebrities are just faces on a screen. Yes, we may know their names and facts about their lives, but they still aren't the heroes of our stories.

This leads to a wrong-headed understanding that we are somehow important. It's what I am going to call ZSS, or Zombie Survivor Syndrome. Whenever people talk about the zombie apocalypse we always talk about what we would do to survive. We discuss how we would weather the crisis as part of a group of desperate survivors, but think about that. We never imagine it will be us who dies, who has the accident, who gets the heart attack. How could it be us? We are the hero? But statistically, you are more likely to wind up as Shambling Corpse #43 than as Rick or Carol, or any other survivor. Sonder is a state of understanding that we are not significant, at least not more so than anyone else around us. There is a saying that goes, "Everyone driving faster than me is a maniac, and everyone driving slower than me is a moron." Realizing that that is not true is sonder.

I have to admit, that I am broken, even just a little. Sonder is nothing new to me, though I never had a word to put to the sensation before. I have always been a bit too empathetic, at times it can prove a burden. Ever since I was a kid sitting in the back seat watching the passing cars I have wondered about the people in them. Where were they going? What did they do? Were they happy? Sad? Today I do it on a larger scale with co-workers and friends and the guy walking his dog on the street. Maybe that is just part of being a writer, a storyteller. I try to find the story in everyone I meet, but sometimes I also try not to. When you see everyone in the world as a potential diamond, than you realize that you are no different, no more special, than anyone else. The world doesn't owe me anything, at least not more or less than it owes that old woman at the supermarket. You see, there is a benefit to thinking you're special, it gives you drive and entitlement that helps you succeed. It helps to not think of all those zombie you are carelessly cutting through as special people: mothers, brothers, sisters, graphic designers, main characters in their own foregone life. We strive to be the Waldo, but sometimes we can't be. And sometimes we have to acknowledge that it's okay not to be.

Where's Waldo is a perfect microcosm of sonder. The whole name implies that we need to find this one person, this special person. Look at the image to the left. Can you see Waldo? He is hidden amongst a multitude of people and crowds, but we ignore all those people. All we want to do is find this one man in a weirdly striped shirt. Hell, it's the name of the game. It's become a cultural expression. We look for the needle in the haystack while ignoring the hay, but have you ever stopped to look at the other people occupying Waldo's world? They are alive, they have their own problems and triumphs. There are fireman putting out a fire that was obviously started by three incompetent chefs. There is a car accident, a man in scuba gear in the fountain, kids crossing the street, a janitor being attacked by birds, and two more LARPing for their own amusement on a rooftop. All those people have lives, and maybe even animated spouses and children and pet parakeets waiting for them at home.

There is also a man at the bottom. He is on the right most ladder. He is trying to flirt with one of the secretary's working in the building, and it looks like she is responding. Maybe this is the culmination of his life, the thing he has been secretly hoping for, the love he has been waiting for? Or maybe he is an egotistically chauvinist asshole, but he is living the story as his own main character, completely oblivious to the idiot in the red and white hat and hiking gear. In fact, of all the people on this page, I would argue Waldo is one of the more boring ones. Sure he is seeing the world, but is he living in it? Whenever we see him he's alone, never engaged with another person or doing something wacky or something fun. He just stands there. So, yes, he is the main character of this book, but is that always the best thing? For my money I would rather be part of the couple who is standing in front of the building on fire. They are shoulder to shoulder watching the calamity unfurl as a chef tries to explain himself to a fireman, but they are together and there is something sweet about it, something that Waldo will never get to experience.

A state of sonder does not mean to imply that we are not unique, just not as unique as we sometimes think. You are not a diamond among the rough, just a diamond among many others. Still, a diamond is a diamond, and if more people thought like like this, if more people experienced sonder, than maybe the world would be a better place. After all, there is a benefit to not being Waldo, to being the guy standing above it all, looking down on the world and its all beauty and fountain scuba diving. When you stop thinking of yourself as something different you get to see how truly alike we all are. There will never be another you, but there will also never be another person like your mailman or that taxi driver that ran those two red lights or your baby niece in her crib. When you understand sonder, you understand how precious the world is, and how truly lucky we are to spend a few years passing through it.