Brain Canvas

Walking has served humans fine for hundreds of thousands of years, but it often seems like a major bottleneck in our daily routine – or it’s just plain not fast enough to be exciting.  Airplanes, trains, motorbikes, and automobiles work fine for longer distances but there is not a bus stop at everybody’s doorstep.  Bicycles can traverse these unserved spaces, but they are too large to carry with us at all times, you often cannot bring them on public transport, and they have to be parked and locked.  Even when they are locked, delinquents and condescending fraternity members still steal your bike seat, which may or may not be as soaked as a sponge depending on the weather.

This is what I was pondering yesterday as I was ten minutes late for work, quickly and awkwardly ambling from the subway to the doorstep of my employer through the narrow, crowded hu tong streets of Beijing.

For Segway-busting mobility, I would prefer something I will arbitrarily name the MagScooter.  The mag scooter requires three different pieces of hardware: one is a handset unit, the other two are footwear equipment that allow you to walk like normal but can transform into large wheels, either by coming out of the bottom of the shoe or by sliding down from the sides.  When you step off the bus and see a great expanse of sidewalk or tarmac ahead of you, whip out the MagScooter unit.  The unit is the size of a 600-page hardback book and can be put inside a rucksack or messenger bag.  The handles, much like regular scooter handles, fold out of this contraption.  When gripping both handles, and in the presence of the footwear, an intentional flicking action, like one would do in order to make a bedsheet flap and wave in the air or like casting a fishing rod with both hands at the same time, something remarkable happens.

The front wheel of what effectively will be a tricycle flies out the front or bottom of the hand unit and upon contact with the ground, rights itself up on its tire and makes an invisible connection with the handset unit.  At the same time, the wheels on the bearer’s footwear deploy and with this, all three items are connected to each other with some kind of non-visible force.  There is no physical pole or neck between the handset unit and the front wheel or any other component of the MagScooter.  A data and energy connection between all three components makes everything work.  The rider can lean forward against the handset and though the space and orientation will give with the front wheel, the bearer’s weight will be supported seemingly on the handset itself, which is actually receiving a force-feedback response from the front wheel.  Perhaps strong direct-force magnets are involved, or some yet undiscovered energy medium.

When the rider leans forward, they tilt forward on their feet as well which is similar to leaning forward on a bicycle when pedaling up an incline.  Now that the MagScooter is deployed, the rider can use the hand unit to accelerate just like with a normal scooter.  The back wheels come with a small but very powerful motor and battery which can achieve a brisk velocity.

The MagScooter makes it as easy as remembering to pack your favorite book to deliver quick and enjoyable land travel, whether from home to work or on a weekend joyride.

It’s no secret that U.S. President Barack Obama wants  a nuclear-free world.  Who doesn’t other than the military-industrial complex?

However, destroying the most powerful weapon in human history altogether may be too much.  There are plenty of legends and fantasy stories in which a great weapon thousands of years past has either been lost or destroyed and must be reforged or rediscovered in order to meet a threat the likes of which the world has never seen.

I believe very strongly that weapons generally exist to kill people, not to defend people.  But there are at least two global threats that would warrant an atomic sword like the one we wield now: killer asteroid and hostile extraterrestrial attack.

There are several ways to deflect an asteroid and using a nuclear weapon is not necessarily the most effective one, but it is a useful one.  And as I have mentioned before, I believe that it is more than likely that extraterrestrial life will come in peace, but if for some reason they do not or if they look upon our greedy ecophagic ways with scorn and fear, we may need to do an evil deed to keep ourselves some semblance of alive.

But the people of the world will not be able to live in mutually-agreed peace if one or a few sovereign countries hold their swords high above the heads of those who cannot have it.  Furthermore, those scenarios are ones which go far beyond the problem of national or regional stability – they threaten the existence of all things on Earth, including humans, all of which were around long before the State.  Albert Einstein provides a solution in his letter “Atomic War or Peace” that the wielders of the atomic bomb should give up their use to the United Nations.  In this way, the UN could act as a defender not on earth, but of earth.  The UN would not need to have the thousands of nuclear weapons that currently exist; rather after a satisfactory period of disarmament by the nuclear powers some 10% could be handed over to UN stewardship.

Let us hope though that upon completion of this great beating of swords into plowshares that the great and terrible power of nuclear weapons becomes a hallowed legend in the human chronicle and not a day-to-day living reality.  Otherwise we could inadvertently come to know what it is like to live as they do in the chilling 1984 BBC television play Threads.

Coca-cola festively pours into a glass.  The soda fizzes above the rim and enticingly slides down the side, indicating a full cup to the viewer.  Fast-forward to 24 hours later, and you have a flat, stale syrup crawling with ants.

A celebutante smiles with artificially white teeth as she announces for the television camera that she loves her high-heeled shoes so much, she sometimes sleeps in them.  She also boasts, for the value of titillation, that wearing heels improves the strength of her pelvic floor muscle.  Fast-forward forty years, to a tired woman who hobbles from chronic feet and back problems.

Presidents, CEOs, and civic leaders – many of whom came riding on the surfboard of responsible change – pledge through the thick and the thin of evidence and event on climate change, biodiversity, depletion of natural resources, pollution of the ecosystem and maintenance of natural balance that “We will do what it takes to find a solution that will continue to allow [YOUR COUNTRY HERE!]’s economy to grow and prosper.”

How is this for an advertisement: After every car commercial, let’s see the graphs of how many ppm of carbon has been forced into the atmosphere, and let’s see the smog of LA behind the company logo.  After every value meal menu commercial, let’s see the clearing of rain forests for grazing and farmland and the starving aid-recipients who continue to eat just enough to keep having more mouths to feed.

Would people still feel good about their Senator endorsing biofuels if they saw, side-by-side, the environmental destruction from using intensive food crops as fuel and the figures with all of the carbon input required for biofuel production and consumption in comparison with that of crude oil?

The unquestioned life is not worth living, Socrates tells us. To add value to our decisions, advertising agencies should treat their ads as a question to be answered, rather than an order to be followed.

The ascent of the e-reader is both predictible and inevitable. In the future, all media will be both consumed in digital and mobile platforms. Mobile digital music has of course already arrived. Video is readily accesible in this format as well. The book and magazine, once the pinnacle of the analog world, has been slower to adapt but it too is clearly trending towards the digital pocket of the 21st century consumer.

Devices like Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s e-reader are blazing a trail that as of now is still trod by a select few pioneers. But as copy right law adapts and technology advances, prices will fall and usage will rise. Until now, the e-reader has been a concept designed for the adult reader. As the platform gains acceptance though, demand in new segments will grow. Enter the Kinder.

The Kinder is the e-reader for children ages 3-10. It not only combines, but realizes the potential of, two functionalities which are just beginning to merge: wireless e-reader devices and touch screen technology.

The Kinder will allow children to wireless search, browse and download interactive literature. Imagine the first handheld device that will allow children to download their first book, and allow them to touch the words they have not yet learned to have them spoken aloud for them understand.

But the Kinder is not just speak and spell 2.0. It comes standard with a syllus, allowing children to download writing programs and yes, even coloring books, selecting shades on the color wheel and drawing outside the lines to their hearts content.

The Kinder revolutionizes education. For the price of a whole semester’s worth of textbooks, a student can purchase a kinder and download all the textbooks they will need for the entirity of their educational careers – K through University. The Kinder is a win for the education and the environment, and heralds the next generation learning the world over.

When I read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in high school, apart from it being the “first great American novel” and all of the allegories and strong symbolism built up within the book, to me the most intriguing part was: they traveled down hundreds of miles of river in a raft and saw cool stuff and got into misadventures!

Would that I could do what they did on the Mississippi River.  Back in the 1800’s that kind of a trip was possible, albeit dangerous.  Today though, major rivers are dammed up and diverted, preventing a great expedition from taking place.

Let us pretend for a moment, though, that this was not so; that every major river on the Earth was not dammed up.  Disbelief must be suspended because the changes wrought by river engineering have been vast and widespread; here I am assuming that the topography of all places is the same, save for the removal of man-made river barriers.

In this maritime alternative, you can build your own raft – mine would have a tiny cabin, a captain’s chair, and an ironic flag hoisted up – and travel on the cheap without having to do way too much work.  Start at the first navigable point past the headwaters in the middle of Spring and you will be rushed down the hydro-road to destinations that bring back to mind the fabulous journeys of the old Silk Road trading routes.  The river itself would lend context to every location you could visit.  Take the Danube from picturesque Regensburg, Bavaria, and on your way to the magnificent Black Sea you will pass through thousands of miles and years of varied history.  Vienna, Bratislava, Budapest, Mohács, a bit of Croatia, tons of Romania, some of Bulgaria, Serbia, and the Ukraine.  Why stop at the mouth when you could continue along the coast to Odessa, to Georgia and the Caucasian part of Russia, or to the whole northern coast of Turkey?

Take also the Yellow River in China, home to the oldest continuous civilization on the planet.  The Yellow River would take you from grand mountains and canyons to the fertile plains which cradled early Chinese civilization, and which still holds a legendary place in the national psyche.  The Brahmaputra flows for a great length through the Tibetan plateau, then through Bangladesh and it empties along with the Ganges in a great river delta.  The Amazon? The Thames? The Rhine? The Nile? And of course, the modern-day Mississippi?

The greatest part of the adventure, though, would come from what would inevitably arise from a resurgence in river traffic.  The riverbanks of towns and cities would once again become the lively centers of commerce and activity they once were.  An amazing array of goods could be purchased.  Many cultures would be found, and of course the docks would be the doorstep to swashbuckling adventure.  You should be able to find docking for your raft… it would be a lot less of a hassle than trying to find a parking space.  Meet up with other river-wanderers.  Find work, illicit or not, on a bigger boat or in some dockside bar.

Give me three months and a raft, and I will be content.  For three months.

In studying history, I find the complex “green” movement of 300 years ago interesting. As most historians now assess that time, one of the major problems with the movement was that in trying to make the word mean something, it wound up meaning nothing at all – it was co-opted by marketers, governments, and do-gooders who broke any ability to trust that the label had any association with sustainability.

Climate change – “global warming” – was the great evil that would require all sectors of global society to band together and conquer. However, climate change is not like an asteroid headed for Earth; it is always far-away and is easily left to someone else to either blame it on or deal with it. There were other major problems the world was facing too – a major loss of habitat for many species and as a result ecological destabilization, pollution of water sources around the globe, and major religious and ethnic tensions that found safe harbor in central Asia which forced powerful states to focus their attention on controlling terrorism. Of course, all of those were only the symptoms. The real problems were plain for everyone to see, but since they were so embedded in the human psyche since we first began to bend Nature – and each other – to our will, they were almost never addressed.

That is, not until a coalition of several non-governmental organizations, activists, and certain government officials from several countries formed in the late 2010s to publicy declare their intent to steer global efforts towards solving the “crimes of human nature:” overpopulation and overconsumption.

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” This is what God told the first human beings in Genesis 1:28. Evangelical Christians of the time called it the “cultural mandate,” that it not only justified but demanded humanity to live not as a part of the natural ecosystem, but as its puppetmaster.

If we mined the resources of the Earth like a quarry, we should have remembered that quarries get used up. If we cut quickly and fuirously from the Earth’s forests as from a single grove, we should have remembered that groves can be felled before the seeds of what trees remain before the axe can grow into new wood. We should have remembered, anyway, that the Earth isn’t an infinitely vast place. It is only a much larger place than a grove or a quarry. And we became much larger than a town or a village. We became ants crawling over the seeping face of a dropped fruit.

When that grouping of advocates and policymakers formed, they stated without hesitation and fear the logical answer to solve the problem of overpupulation: reduce the population and keep it from growing too large. For overconsumption: consume less, and what we do consume, consume in a way that is completely sustainable.  This not only went against most of humanity’s fast-held beliefs on their own privileges in the world, but it clearly went directly against every growth-oriented business and political interest.  For a very long time, growth was the rule to prosperity, growth at all costs.  Even when it caused chronic short-sightedness and deeply shook the global economy several times, dropping the growth-centric model was not even possible to think of to the major stakeholders of the world’s economic and social order.  Even though the entrenched interests arranged for quite a few astroturfing campaigns, riots based on false information, and more than a few assassinations, the coalition of sustainability managed to convince a few key European NATO governments of the need to focus all efforts on developing a way of life that was sustainable for the Earth and the human race’s place in it.  The United States, weary of interventionism, did not muster up the political will to attack its NATO allies and sink the planet into a world war.  Although it did not join the European countries’ development of plans to solve the crises of overconsumption and overpopulation for over a decade, it eventually capitulated after the effects began to coalesce into a perfect storm with food riots in overseas interests severely damaging its economy while floods all over low-lying coastal areas of the world caused tremendous mass migrations, notably from Central America up to the Texas border.

The key part of the solution for overpopulation lay in food production.  A global regime of trade control was implemented to either prevent or severely limit food importation and exportation.  It was laid out in stages lasting about a decade or two each.  Every form of food but staple crops was immediately banned from general trade; not even a small quota of luxury foodstuffs could be legally moved across state borders in order to prevent a massive rich-poor health gap from forming.  Of course, illegal production still managed to make it smuggled across, but nations were bound to use  complete trade sanctions on all forms of trade, including energy, raw materials and production goods, if a country was caught not enforcing the food embargo.  After fifteen years of this passed, enough for the effects of family planning to take serious hold due food availability, the amount of staple crop that could be exported or imported was reduced by 50 percent.  This forced each to develop food production methods that could be essentially self-sufficient for its own population.  After fifteen more years of this, all imports and exports of foodstuffs were banned for a full thirty years.

There was of course massive economic upheaval, in the form of destructive development.  The old supply lines and order of things was radically shifted as net exporters had to find new ways to fill the economic gap left from the trade restrictions, and net importers were forced to develop a self-sustaining system of cultivation for its own population.  In some areas there was mass starvation, but not orders of magnitude greater than previous starvations caused by chronic poor weather and bad harvests. The general trend was actually one of simply heavily declining birthrates.  Parents had fewer children as there would not be enough food to support them all otherwise, and most people died natural deaths, not from starvation.  Impoverished populations who relied on food aid withered away, a painful consequence of the new order of things – but to this day, billions of lives have been saved compared to the alternative.  Those populations generally did not disappear, but many of them were reduced to small numbers.  By the time food trade was allowed again, every single country on the planet (and some countries had to merge or split in order to effectively manage their sustainable food systems) could feed its own population, many with the ability to set up reserves.

As for overconsumption, the principle of “cradle-to-cradle” economics became the law of the land.  For all materials for which it was possible, recycling was mandatory.  Energy had to become completely renewable for 80% of a nation’s energy consumption, and cities and towns were rearranged such that less energy and space was necessary to provide civilization with the goods and services it needed.  Value creation became the rule-of-thumb, replacing growth creation.  Old industries died and new ones were built up in their place.  Families who could produce much of what they needed themselves were greatly rewarded with tax breaks.

The  detractors at the time said that these plans amounted to a desire to return to Neolithic living.  Having vacationed on the Moon more than once, I can readily say they overreacted.  We are happy in our world of 2.5 billion people, clean and close-knit communities, pure air and water, and vast open spaces.

A sustainable way of life is not one in which we patch up our problems. We must solve the issues that cause our problems in the first place.

– Inspired by R. Black and Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael.

Many great works of science fiction present the world of the future as one in which the great cultures have blended together to create one global mono-culture. Harrison Ford ordering lunch in Chinese in a dystopian Los Angeles ca. 2019 (Blade Runner, 1982) or more recently the casually dropped slang words in the Chinese of Earth-That-Was (Firefly) are just two more commonly known examples.

Life imitates art, and the effect that science fiction has had on the emergence of science fact is well documented (e.g. Star Trek heavily influenced the designers of the first cell phones). It follows then, that we can draw one conclusion from previous examples of future culture: we will all speak Chinese.

But language is just one aspect of culture. There are arts, customs and values to consider along with perhaps the most exciting and unexplored: food!

What will the Chinese-Mexican-Indian-etc. take-out menu of the future look like?

Sesame Beef Burrito

Curry Frijoles Dumplings

Orange Chicken Shwarma

Italian Sausage Sushi

YUM!

And to drink… Coca Cola. Some things will never change.

I am tired of 90% of my experiences of “going out” to “the bar” (and I HATE how everyone calls multiple establishments “the bar” as if there is one, unbroken mythical bar asserted in varied aspects and avatars through different locations) involving being too cramped, surrounded by people who are too drunk and all look the same, and drowned out by head-against-a-car-door beating and repetitive music.  The reader may call me a damned antisocial fiend for saying that, since so many people apparently either like or say they like those things about going out.

Some bars I have been to have pleased me greatly though.  I recall The Echo Tap in Madison, Wisconsin, for its down-played decor, personable tenders, and non-pounding ambiance which allows for plenty of conversation – in that case, high-stakes political wheeling and dealing was undertaken without the need to shout, or any key words garbled in the three feet between my mouth and my blog-colleague’s.  A more recent outing imprinted in memory was in Philadelphia at National Mechanics, which I will confess so impressed me that is is sort of an inspiration for the following.

A great public house should not be like a cattle car with alcohol instead of feeding tubes.  Even if the cattle car is swank, dive, themed, local or a veritable meat market, it is still full of too many mammals making the same sounds.  More than ample space is needed to free the customer from claustrophobia.  It could mean high ceilings, a long hallway, or big windows.  The bar itself should be fairly long with good amenities like a round wrist-wrest (much appreciated), a lip at the edge to prevent spillage from having any consequences on your clothes, hooks at knee level for bags and purses, and a footrest at the least.  The barstools should be ergonomically constructed to lend themselves to being sat in for a long time with minimal discomfort.  A large main room is a good idea, with plenty of tables and a space at the front for a performance or speech if required, but the tables should remain on the floor unless there is a special event.  I would like to sit at a bar and talk, not bounce around on my feet, generally.

Off from the main room there should be side rooms and stalls, which can either be occupied on a first-come first-serve basis or can be reserved prior.  They should vary in the amount of space offered, from four people in a small stall to up to about twenty people in a larger room, for discussions and meetings of all sort to be permitted to take place.  The bathroom amenities should be designed so that, no matter what, long lines are not the norm – and keep the bathrooms clean!

Primarily the public house is a space for people to come together.  It should be like a town hall, except you can drink and swear.  You should be able to do those things at a town hall as well, but failing that, let it be the public house.  The wall decoration should be the product of local artisans, or maybe collections from patrons’ travels.  The music if at all possible should be live and played on real instruments, or spun by a real DJ – but should only be loud when it really needs to be loud.  As for the smell, if the publican can take care to not let any part of the bar smell like Jaegerbomb vomit, then they will probably do a good job with the upkeep of the rest of the olfactory ambiance.

Food is key during the day, and some of it at night as well.  The food should not just be common “bar food.”  The establishment should take pride in its menu and not dip everything into the fryer.  Like in Spain, free small snacks should come with every drink someone orders.  Coffee should be available all the time, right up to last call.

When I decide to go to a bar, whether at noon or at eleven in the evening, I should expect that I will either see someone there I have met before, or that I will have no trouble meeting someone new, almost without great effort.  Connections should be made constantly, and ideas and stories should be exchanged.  Going with friends, I should expect to be able to have a conversation without screaming in each other’s ear and not have the conversation be limited to how expensive the beer is or how there is no room.  The bar should be a place to talk about cool things, and not just things that some people find cool – the people who want to go to bars all the time.  Businesses should be started from conversations at bars every week.  Political ideas should be hatched.  New romances should be made – not just one-night stands.  Societies should be able to meet in the rooms and meeting-spaces regularly and then get half off drinks for the rest of the night when their meeting is done.  The bar should promote these societies.

The bar should also decide to stand for something in the community, beyond just being there for the community to meet and drink.  A political focus? A business focus? A spiritual focus?  A particular activity, like a sport or a hobby or music?   By encouraging people to become active in the community that establishes itself in its space, the bar welcomes these patrons to become participants and shapers of the experience there.  They become stakeholders instead of customers.  Then things can really happen, and these movements and communities become known to many more people than if they had to meet in someone’s residence or another private space.

In the end though, I just want a place where I can enjoy one or many drinks and have a few conversations.

A fantasy: I walk into a bar with a friend or two in a city of historical importance, let’s say Washington, DC.  It does not matter whether it is a sharp and ultra-modern bar or a homey, well-worn public house.  We sit down on the stools at the bar, and before we can order our drinks a throaty, erudite voice to my left utters:

“Are you gentlemen Tories, or Americans?”

I turn to see who has asked this misplaced question to find Benjamin Franklin, complete with bifocals, period dress, and bald head giving way to a flowing ring of whitening hair.  His exceedingly ample frame overflows his barstool, but he appears at ease, not shoved against the bar, drinking a foamy amber ale from a pint glass.  “Excuse me?” my friend to the right asks.

“I ask you again, friends, are you loyal to the tyrant King George the Third, or are you of an American persuasion?”

We are certainly amused to temporary dumbness at the situation.  We walked in expecting a routine evening of socializing with each other and perhaps some other marginally interesting attendants of the pub.  Instead we have found someone well beyond the margins of interesting – quite a weirdo.  Curious and wanting to play along, I speak to him as if I was talking about my opinion on an upcoming, heavily contested Presidential election.  “American, of course! I don’t associate with anyone else.  Right, friends?” One friend nods vigorously in agreement, the other stares with brows raised, too cool to be a part of the game.

“Well, you have found yourself in good company, sirs!” he assures us with a warmer tone.  “Publican! Three pints of your finest cask ale for these gentlemen, on my behalf.”  The bartender opens the tap on a large wooden barrel, letting forth a heady draught of the same color that Benjamin is enjoying.  He raises his pint glass and looks us each in the eye over the top rim of his bifocals, and once we follow suit with our glasses he declares, “That the nascent shoot of democracy and independence would be a sturdy, leafy oak for our grandchildren!” We reply “hear, hear” and take a swig.  It is thicker than what I am used to.

He smacks his lips a bit and clears his throat lightly, saying “Every time I raise the glass to my lips, I remember why I come here.”  He puts his glass down and says “Friends, I do not have to tell you that we are at a crucial point in the progress of our American culture and political situation.  A great many of us have become used to the advantages the British take of us.  We are taxed without proper representation in the affairs of our overlords.  They monopolize how we communicate with one another.  They take too high a portion of the things we produce for themselves, after we have had to pay them already for the resources necessary to make an honest living.  And yet, due to the pressure they exert upon the psyche of we colonists, too many of us believe it is a just price to pay to say we are a people under the Crown.  Too many of us – yea, especially too many of us who hold sway over the opinions of our neighbor and the respect of our community – too many of us find it difficult or even seditious and sinful to question whether the Crown has wronged us.  They say, ‘How can the Crown wrong us? What comes from the King is the just law of the land.’”

He takes another deep swig and as he does, none of us make even a twitch of the mouth or a move of our shoulders to suggest that we will interrupt what is clearly a momentary intermission in a feature-length dialogue.  After wiping his lips with his cuffs, Benjamin Franklin resumes: “This is why I fear for the opportunities that are offered by the potential of our thirteen Colonies.  If we humble and intent Colonists bind together as one union of American people, and cause our justly derived government to seat its power upon our sober and considered consent, we may take proper control over our destinies and not become slaves to a power in which we have no stake.  It is this realization which has driven me from complacency into a serious and active interest in the securing and advancement of independence for our Colonies.  Though they may call us terrorists or anti-commerce, I say we are nation-builders!  We cannot, as men who would say we are Americans in these troubled times, sit idly by and allow the tyrant’s oppression to grow and choke our emerging national character.”

We all sat in silence as he downed the rest of his ale, gave the bartender a smile and a wave, and walked out the door of the bar.

I recently saw the film Accepted. Its more or less your standard young adult male comedy (think any movie starring Ryan Reynolds, which this one some what shockingly does not).

The protagonist Bartleby Gaines is the unlucky high school slacker who manages to get rejected from every university he applies to, including The Ohio State University if memory serves (I just like how they put the emphasis on the all the time. I’m a badger myself). Instead of disappointing his over zealous parents he decides to create a fake school, the South Harmon Institute of Technology.

After writing himself a fake acceptance letter from South Harmon, Bartleby goes as far as creating a fake website, leasing an abandoned mental institution to serve as the campus and recruiting Lewis Black to act as the dean in an increasingly elaborate plot to fool his parents. The ruse predictably grows beyond his control as hundreds of fellow rejects apply to South Harmon and arrive on the first day of class expecting a real university. Rather than admit defeat, Bartleby and his gang of friends keep up the illusion to its bitter end, wherein the jealous ex-boyfriend of Bartleby’s new girl exposes the fraudulent university to the parents of all the students in an act of revenge.

In the end, Bartleby is able to demonstrate to the state board of education that his ragtag, student taught classes merit accreditation, allowing South Harmon Institute of Technology to remain open. And of course he gets the girl.

This movie would by no means be worthy of mention even here on the humble Brain Canvas blog were it not for the radical approach to higher education that it suggests. While the university system in the US is, supposedly, the envy of the world, my experience in it was not without its critiques. Too often the system discourages innovative and original thinking, rewarding those most able to repackage the ideas of those who came before them. It certainly teaches valuable skills for the life beyond college, but actual knowledge is often rather useless except to those few who aspire to spend their careers digging themselves ever deeper into an isolated hole of academia.

In other words, professors.

At the end of the day, the system is extremely adept at entrenching the ideas (and authority) of the status quo. Don’t get me wrong – it is without a doubt far better to have gone through this system than to not have, even for those of us who don’t intend to spend the rest of lives in the classroom.

But Accepted, despite the puerile hijinks and token black guys, is in its own way unbelievably subversive to this status quo because of the one, simple question it dares to ask:

What if universities taught students things they actually wanted to learn?

On that note, check out my schedule for the fall semester at Brain Canvas University:

The History of Water
In this class we examine the history of our most precious natural resource, from pre-history to the modern era, from Kathmandu to Kansas City. We also examine the future state of this resource in our modern world. Students are expected to have formulated a concept and business plan to positively impact water conservation by the end of the semester.

Debate
Each week a different student will be responsible for posing a question to his or her peers for debate. Moderated discussion will ensue for the remainder of class time.

Cooking with Rosemary
Rosemary is undoubtedly one of the most delicious herbs known to man. This semester we will learn how to harness this little wonder to its fullest potential. Recipes will include grilled pork loin with mango-rosemary chutney, cheddar bacon rosemary bread, and the divine orange rosemary cheesecake.

Biography
The biography is a historical reference of particular usefulness, giving us insight into the minute experiences that shaped great historical figures into the people the ultimately became. In addition to reading select biographies, each student will be expected to complete their own auto-biography by the end of the semester. Students are free to use whatever medium they choose to complete their biography (writing, photography, video, twitter updates, etc.)

Welcome to Brain Canvas U, Class of the Future. What are you taking this semester?