The success of celebrities is largely dependent on the fans that support them. This can range from fans urging others to stream their idol’s music or helping boost record sales and music video views. It is no surprise that big celebrities such as Taylor Swift or idol groups such as BTS have renowned fandoms (‘Swifties’ and ‘BTS Army’) that include millions of people around the world. The term “stan” is credited to the 2000 Eminem song where he depicts a fan who is obsessed with him to the point of madness. While there is no problem with supporting your favourite celebrity and enjoying their music on Spotify, some fans cross the line and turn genuine support into toxic “stan culture” where overly enthusiastic fans commit extreme actions to support their idol at all costs.

Celeb-Fan Relationships

People initially form attachments to celebrities by enjoying their art and feeling a connection to the artist. However, subtle actions taken by celebrities allow people to rapidly develop unhealthy attachments to their idols. These are usually not out of malicious intent, as celebrities have active incentives to develop closer connections with their fans. Celebrities often purposely do things to make their fans feel special, important, and like they are friends in real life. This can range from Spotify emailing you saying you’re in the “top 1% of listeners around the world” to making statements like “We reached x milestone. Thank you, we did this together.” All these actions help create parasocial relationships, which are one-sided relationships where one person, the fan, extends emotional energy and the other, the celebrity, is actually completely unaware of their existence. While this illusion can help fill a void for a lot of people without social connections, it risks scary repercussions.

The Rise of Stan Culture

The presence of social media has become a key player in shifting the relationship between fans and celebrities. It makes it easy to connect and celebrities can easily share their lives beyond work which brings a sense of connection and relatability to fans. However, the connection between excited fans and the intimacy at concerts is largely different from the online community that is accessible to anyone and has anonymity. Finding other people who are like you and seeing thousands of stan accounts rally together reinforces a sense of shared solidarity, and it is psychologically intoxicating to feel part of a group that has immense power.

Stans are typically uncritical individuals who believe whatever their idol says and will always defend their idol at all costs when there is backlash or criticism. In addition, many cross boundaries, believing that they are very involved in their idol’s lives and are often open to engaging in the harassment of others, like blowing up people’s DMs with death threats. Their accounts are dedicated to helping their idol like guessing their next appearance or album drop. Stans see themselves as performing some kind of necessary service when they actively use their stan accounts and platforms to support their idol.

Support for Social Movements

Stans are often very aware of the power they have when they see the impacts such as their idol’s song reaching number one on Billboard charts of mobilizing their followers. They often follow the positive actions their idol takes which can help move social issues forward and use their stan accounts as a vehicle for activism. For example, BTS Army will frequently match the millions of dollars BTS donates to charity. K-pop stans also trolled those who stood in opposition to the BLM movement and hijacked racist hashtags. As such, they were labelled as one of the most influential stan groups in the world. However, standoms have started to move into the political realm. Last year, stans and TikTok users trolled Trump’s campaign rally in Oklahoma which resulted in empty seats. Stan accounts have also used their platform to advocate for certain political candidates that will often take cues from the values and stances of their idol.

The Toxicity

While the power of stan culture has resulted in many positive influences, it poses a toxic way of supporting celebrities. Stans intentionally blind themselves to show support for their idol and refuse to admit that other celebrities are human too and make mistakes. Frequently, stans have rallied themselves around less admirable causes through perpetuating extreme call-out culture and bigotry. They are quick to attack anyone who criticizes or wrongs their idols even if it is backed by reasoning/evidence and many go to the extreme of sending death threats to other celebrities. As general fan culture changes, it has become more common for fans to act in vile ways to innocent people and claim it’s done out of love and support for their idol. For example, after Taylor Swift called out the show, “Ginny and Georgia” for a sexist joke they made about her, fans started a hashtag to demand respect for Taylor Swift but some took an extreme approach and immediately began to harass the actors of “Ginny and Georgia” on her behalf. This shows how Swifties consistently harass and dox anyone who disagrees with Taylor Swift. As well, when a writer tweeted something mildly critical of Nicki Minaj’s music, fans insulted and harassed her. The belief of stans that their idol is perfect and can do no wrong has led to a history of cultural appropriation. For example, Blackpink faced backlash for including a statue of Lord Ganesha, a god in Hindu culture, as a prop on the ground in the background of a scene in the music video of their song, “How You Like That.” Many Indians were mad at the disrespectful representation and used the hashtag #MyCultureIsNotYourAesthetic on Twitter to speak on the issue. However, after this caught the attention of Blackpink’s fans, “Blinks,” they fiercely defended the girl group stating it wasn’t their fault. Blackpink members never publicly apologized, but later, YG Entertainment removed the statue from the music video.

While celebrities can’t be held responsible for the behaviour of each and every fan, they have a responsibility to speak out against fans who are making people’s lives miserable through harassment and doxing. Remaining silent justifies their fandom’s actions and makes celebrities feel comfortable with fans being their protection. Blissful ignorance can result in massive harm to others; the problematic behaviour of willfully ignorant standoms cannot be left unchecked by the public and celebrities themselves.

Sources

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/taylor-swift-fans-consistently-dox-harass-stop.html/

https://junkee.com/stan-culture-toxic/259044

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/year-stan-how-internet-s-super-fans-went-pop-stars-n1252115

https://www.vulture.com/2020/05/lana-del-rey-doja-cat-stan-culture-essay.html

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/maija-kappler/toxic-stan-culture_a_23630003/

https://portolapilot.com/the-toxic-rise-of-cancel-culture/

https://csusmchronicle.com/21948/opinion/stan-culture-is-problematic-for-both-the-celebrity-and-the-fans/

Steve Nash, Joel Embiid, Pascal Siakam, and Tacko Fall - what do all of these players have in common? They are all from Africa. According to NBA commissioner Adam Silver, as many as 55 current basketball players are either African or have at least one African parent. Basketball can also open many educational opportunities for children facing poverty by offering scholarships or travel. Furthermore, basketball will help boost the economic state of many African cities, depending on their team’s successes. The potential of the players in Africa is unbelievable and deserves to be looked at, which is exactly why five former basketball stars are partnering with the NBA and investing in NBA Africa.

On May 16th, 2021, Basketball League Africa was launched. Players on the world’s 2nd largest continent would finally get a chance to play in a league closer to home. The league will be supervised by NBA Africa and will help encourage the presence of league sports in underdeveloped African countries.

At first, the league’s game system will be a bit different than the NBA we all know and love. But as it gains popularity, the systems will change to become more similar, by possibly including more games and playoff rounds. At the moment, there will be 12 teams, of which 6 teams will go into the playoffs and play single-game elimination rounds until there is a winner.

The players in this league will all be locals, and some superstars may even be drafted to the NBA in North America. Africa currently has a rapidly growing population of 1.2 billion and is one of the largest emerging global markets. This basketball league is bound to grow and draw in a lot of profit.

NBA representatives have stated that in the first few years, NBA Africa has the potential of earning as much as a billion dollars in profit. Using this information, they are trying to get as many people as they can to invest in this new venture. Africa is a huge continent, so finding the right talent will be a lot tougher than finding talent in North America, and will require a lot of money, which is why experienced board members are needed.

So who will be on the board of this huge new league? As of may 26th, only five board members have been confirmed: Junior Bridgeman, Grant Hill, Joakim Noah, Dikembe Mutombo, and Luol Deng. All five are retired NBA players who are either African, African American, or have some sort of African-related background. They are all highly qualified and have taken part in many post-retirement initiatives that spread the spirit of basketball. Luol Deng is even currently the president of the South Sudan Basketball Federation.

There’s not too much information on the public’s response to this new league. However, many sports journalists and NBA specialists have expressed their positive opinions.

Now that the NBA is expanding, there will be many more exceptional players added to the ranks. There are now NBA-affiliated teams on four continents, and as the sport continues to gain popularity, we should expect more to come.

Sports Upkeep:

• Adam Vinatieri announces retirement

• Some Japan executives want Olympics to be cancelled, but preparation is going ahead

• Despite calling up amazing players, and Guerriel Jr.’s incredible plays, the Jays are struggling

• Islanders scored 2 goals against the Penguins in a span of 13 seconds

• Raptors don’t make it to the playoffs

• Despite breaking protocol, LeBron James will not be suspended

• Curry, Embiid, and Jovik named finals for season MVPs

• Colombia is no longer a co-host for Copa America

• Italy manager Roberto Mancini’s coaching contract is extended to 2026

• Alex Ovechkin is now a part owner of the Washington Spirits

• Neymar extends contract with PSG

• Williams loses to Romagna again

• Wimbledon 2021 will have a reduced audience

Sources:

• https://www.nba.com/news/nba-announces-formation-of-nba-africa

• https://www.nba.com/news

• https://www.sportsnet.ca/

Bo Burnham can best be described as an innovator in the field of comedy. On stage he is cynical and offbeat, always in plain jeans and a non-descript shirt. His comedy specials can’t truly be described as stand-up, they’re a series of musical bits loaded with cultural commentary, self-referential jokes, and toying with the audience. His humor is ambitious, jokes stacked with multiple references, rhymes and punchlines. To the careful observer, it’s clear that each second of the routine is carefully planned, put together, and rehearsed. Whereas normal stand-up benefits from a bit of improvisation and variability, Burnham’s humor is ultra-high production value, every moment intentional. His specials have a character and atmosphere that can really only be understood by watching them (which I would recommend).

Inside is Burham’s latest special to arrive on Netflix, and was made entirely during the course of lockdown. The special was planned, written, directed, filmed, performed, and edited by Burnham alone. The entire special is filmed in one room in Burnham’s own home, and instead of being one single take as a live show would be, it is a series of skits and songs edited together into something much closer to a movie than a live show. From the very beginning, the special is different. Burnham now sports a quarantine beard and long hair, appearing in rather bedraggled clothes. In his previous specials he appears young and clean shaven, and one gets the sense that this is a creative genius at the top of his game, so many ideas buzzing through his head he hardly knows what to do with them. Here, Burnham looks tired and depressed, the product of a life falling apart. He knows this, and makes no effort to hide his appearance, embracing it more and more as the show goes on.

Despite his looks, Burnham is clearly in peak creative form for the special. The jokes are just as ambitious and topical (not to mention funny), taking on everything from the social upheavals of the last year to corporate activism, as well as lighter subject matter (see his hilarious skits about a white woman’s Instagram and sexting with emojis). The show is hyper self aware, Burnham knows exactly what he’s saying and how it comes off, and integrates this into his comedy. He’s even self aware of his self awareness, and the product as a whole gives an air of being created by someone who has meticulously considered every aspect of what he’s created, especially the things you didn’t even notice.

At many points, the special makes no attempt to be funny, rather, it becomes brutally honest. It is often eerie and even disturbing, with heartbreaking moments of emotional intensity. Burnham is not afraid to try new things, and he pushes this to the very limit in Inside. The skits are musical, random, and eclectic, edited together without much continuity between them, but are thematically united by a sort of meta-narrative in the background of the special. Between the skits, and sometimes instead of them, Burnham has candids of him making the special, or just freely talking about it. In these intermissions, the lines are blurred between reality and performance, and you can’t be sure whether Burnham is performing, entirely in control, or completely the opposite, a picture of reality the audience is usually never meant to see.

The special is more unique than anything else Burnham has ever made. It makes his previous specials look as tame and normal as the usual stand-up that he distinguished himself from in the first place. He is more distinctive and extreme in his humor than ever, and shockingly vulnerable at other times. Burnham struggles with age, depression, loneliness, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts throughout the special, a struggle that is made all the more honest by his backdrop, a single chaotic room filled with the random mess of creating the very thing you’re watching.

As with anything by Bo Burnham, the themes are intentional and complex. Inside is perhaps his piece of work that embodies this the most. Burnham is artificial and self aware, taking on different personalities and genres to parody everything around him. This serves in part as a reflection on the year in quarantine, with people only showing certain parts of their lives, performing on camera while they do. He also takes the counterpoint of this, showing the unattractive and private sides of himself through certain songs and especially the candids throughout the special. Burnham engages with his usual themes of meaning, audience, and life with the internet, although this time it’s through a uniquely solitary and confined lens, as is the nature of the special.

Despite my praise, the show is not perfect. Bo Burnham has a very particular brand of humor, and I have no doubt that some viewers will simply not resonate with his entire form of comedy. Even for those who like his work, not all the jokes land (which is true for any piece of comedy) and the sketches sometimes fail to come together. The more serious bits are sporadic and often confusing, and despite being the most ambitious and unique parts of the show, they are also the riskiest, as is the nature of trying new things.

In the end, it’s difficult to summarize Inside, precisely because it is so unique. It ranges from hysterical to devastating, but is always utterly transfixing. For the first time in a while, I felt no compulsion to open a second tab or browse my phone while watching a 90 minute piece of media, something that is both impressive and refreshing. Perhaps more than anything, the special is the best representation of lockdown and the year of Covid that I have ever seen. Many have tried to capture the highs and lows of lockdown, the particular brand of high-octane internet distraction juxtaposed with ennui and depression, but nothing I’ve seen comes close to how well Inside does it. Hilarious, intense, heart-wrenching, thought-provoking, and ultimately compassionate, Inside is Bo Burnham at his best, and is one of the most creative and timely pieces of media created this year. A must watch.

Our irresponsible use of technology has increased concerns about the environment in recent years. Whether it be contribution to consumerism (trading out iPhone 6s for iPhone 8s) or planned obsolescence, there is no denying that from manufacturing to disposal, technology can be very wasteful.

But perhaps we can use technology to help mitigate some of these issues, and make a change! Fight fire with fire >:)

Reducing Emissions

Slowly but surely, the world will make the transition to renewable energy. But in the meantime, we need to find a way to reduce the amount of CO2 that burning fossil fuels releases into the atmosphere. Current methods which aim to prevent CO2 from going into the air during manufacturing processes are simply not feasible: they’re either too expensive, not applicable on a large scale, or might even have their own adverse impacts. Although still in the research phase, there are many promising alternatives that nanotechnology provides. Let’s dive into three: nanoscale polymer films, charged electrochemical plates, and metal-organic frameworks.

Researchers from the Institute of Materials Research and Institute of Polymer Research at GKSS-Research Centre Geesthacht have used nanotechnology techniques to develop completely “defect-free” film membranes, less than 100 nanometers thin. These membranes have effective CO2 permeance: about 20 times greater than commercial membranes (Berger, 2010). The cost? As low as 35 USD per tonne of recaptured CO2. For a benchmark, the social cost of one tonne of CO2 is over 50 USD (Environmental Defense Fund, 2017). They’ve already begun manufacturing - hopefully, we’ll see these membranes on a bigger scale!

Shifting to another method, researchers at MIT (Chandler, 2019) have created a device that can absorb CO2 from the air (even at the average concentration of 400 parts a million found in the atmosphere), and release it in any concentration - which can then even be economically profitable (more on this in a bit). This device works by absorbing gas when it's being charged (the electrodes have a very high affinity for CO2), and then releasing CO2 during discharging. This process takes place at the surface of a stack of electrodes - which are coated with polyanthraquinone (it's made of carbon nanotubes!). Why is this significant? The CO2 this device collects from the atmosphere can be repurposed. For example, in some soft-drink plants, fossil fuels are burned… just to make the CO2 they need to carbonate drinks. This awesome device not only removes CO2 from the air but reduces more CO2 from being produced. For those of you who have been devastated to hear how your soft drinks get their fizz… I hoped it wasn’t soda pressing that you stopped liking your sugary concoctions.

Now, let’s turn our attention to metal-organic frameworks (or MOFs). MOFs extract CO2 from the atmosphere, and “combine it with hydrogen atoms to convert it into valuable chemicals and fuels” (Cichowicz, 2018). Usually, there’s something called a hydrogenation barrier - the high amounts of energy needed to add two hydrogen atoms to CO2 (which would turn the molecules into formic acid, and then others). Researchers have found a MOF which pre-activates CO2, by aligning the CO2 in just the right geometry. But yet—there needs to be one (cost-effective) material that doesn’t mean we have a perfect solution ch can capture and convert CO2. Future research needs to be done!

Water Treatment

Improper disposal of technology causes harmful chemicals to seep into our rivers and oceans. Even ‘proper’ disposal in landfills creates leachate - a highly toxic liquid made when water filters through waste as it is being broken down. Leachate has a high concentration of organic and inorganic compounds and can cause serious damages if it enters bodies of water. Most landfills have a system in place which collects leachate and prevents it from contaminating the soil or water - but even the best “allow leakage rates from .02 to 1.0 gallons per acre per day”, which is a large amount in a year once you consider the scale of landfills (2016, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice).

We’ve established that improper disposal of trash is a serious issue. How can we solve it? Nanotechnology offers a solution: nanocomposite membranes. One recent scientific article written by Shafaei and their colleagues (2016) gives insight into photocatalytic self-cleaning polysulfone membranes - which are sometimes used in landfill leachate treatment. By integrating nanoparticles of tungsten oxide into the membranes, the researchers were able to create a self-cleaning membrane that activates when exposed to radiation from the sun ; a self-cleaning membrane improves effectiveness and lowers chances for leaks. The same effect was observed by nanoparticles such as zinc oxide and iron (III) oxide. The advantages? These particles reduce maintenance costs as well as the growth of bacteria and other organisms, while providing a more essential service: “[decomposing] organic chemicals in the environmental liquid waste by their photocatalytic and superhydrophilicity effects”. In other words, these nanoparticles not only provide a more effective way to prevent leachate from making its way into our soil and water, but also remove “organic and inorganic species” from it. Non-toxic water, here we go!

Clean the Oceans

Let’s end off with talk of some future discoveries - research is still being done, but nanomaterials can play a cost-effective and efficient role in cleaning up oil spills. For example, researchers from the State University of New York Stony Brook continue developing a “nanogrid” - a net made from CuWO4. To maximize surface area, copper tungsten oxide has been manufactured so that it forms microscopic structures which are then “interconnected, like links in a chain” (Cisone, 2013). This maximizes surface area and allows the net to do its job much more effectively. What is its job, you ask? When it receives sunlight, the nanogrid breaks down hydrocarbons to biodegradable compounds, right there in the water - all without causing any type of pollution. These easily transportable nets offer a convenient way to clean up oil spills on a small scale as well (fracking occurs, and as long as it does, we need to find ways to mitigate the issues). The researchers even suggested another application which could be relevant to our everyday lives: dry-cleaning!

Additional Resources

Berger, M. (2010). Carbon dioxide capture with nanometric thin-film membranes. NanoWerk. https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=18139.php

Center for Health, Environment, and Justice. (2016). http://chej.org/wp-content/uploads/LandfillFailures20191.pdf

Chandler. (2019). MIT engineers develop a new way to remove carbon dioxide from air. MIT News. https://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025

Cichowicz. (2018). New breakthrough in nanotechnology that uses atmospheric carbon to make useful chemicals. Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2018-10-smaller-carbon-footprint.html

Cimons. (2013). Nanogrid, activated by sunlight, breaks down pollutants in water, leaving biodegradable compounds. National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=129566&org=NSF

Environmental Defense Fund. (2017) . The true cost of carbon pollution. https://www.edf.org/true-cost-carbon-pollution

https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5597#

Shafaei, et. al. (2016). Self-cleaning behavior of nanocomposite membrane induced by photocatalytic WO3 nanoparticles for landfill leachate treatment. Korean J. Chem. 33, 2968–2981 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-016-0154-y

Let’s say, hypothetically, that you live in a society where everybody’s goal is to go to the top of pine trees. On the news you see the famous celebrities who now have money, power, mates, happiness, and so on, all because they reached the top of so many tall pine trees. Now, pine trees are some of the easiest trees to climb, because they shoot off many horizontal branches along the height of the main trunk, that serve almost as stairs for the climber (on the other hand, most deciduous trees have forks in the main trunk itself, which inhibit a purely vertical climb, and they don’t send off as many lateral branches either). Sometimes, because of disease or physical damage, a particular branch on a given pine tree will become rotten and dead, ready to crash and fall lest any impudent climber put their weight onto the branch. Thus, any competent climber must only put their feet on the live branches; other than this minor caveat of avoiding bad branches, climbing up pine trees is a relatively straightforward endeavor.

But it is the current intellectual fad in this society that you live in to not believe in the value of climbing trees.

“Look at all the people who stepped on the wrong branch, and, well, whoosh down they went and they broke their back!” the intelligentsia of the pine-tree-top-reaching schools will say, with a disapproving frown. “Modern scientific study of the physical mechanics of tree climbing has led to the newer, more logical method: jump from the ground to the top of the tree.”

Jumping, obviously, has numerous benefits over the demoded method of climbing, making it the obvious choice for any pine-tree-top-reacher who thinks logically. Because of conservation of energy, you can never hit the ground harder than you came off it, which has clear safety advantages: if your legs could take the physical strain of initiating the jump, then they can take the strain of the impact. In addition, it is more energy efficient to jump to the top of a pine tree, requiring less calories per summit reached because, among other reasons, the route taken is more direct and the time to arrival is lesser; thus, holding constant the number of calories a person consumes every day, more pinetops can be reached per day by jumping than by climbing, a clear advantage. Furthermore, the jumping method is a more egalitarian method of pinetop reaching, a notable benefit in the very humanitarian and very socially conscious society that you, hypothetically, live in. This is because the trunk of a tree is much smaller than the crown of the tree, so there is more room when people jump directly from the ground to the top instead of greedily using up the space on the inside of the tree around the trunk.

Since pine-summit reaching is so desirable in this society, people have figured out, scientifically, how to more effectively jump to the top of trees. All children go through the mandatory public education system, where they are taught the proper technique for jumping very high, and learn the theoretical underpinnings of why jumping is the best method for reaching the tops of pines. There they also have such unnecessary body parts as the arms, jaw, eyes, ears, gonads, and the portions of the brain not controlling locomotion all removed, because these weigh down the body without contributing to the height of the jump.

And by now, there is an entire industry of people who are earning their living and feeding their families by instructing others how to best jump to the top of pines. Personal trainers, arborists, official fair-height-jumped verifiers, anti-jumping-misinformation censors, public spokespeople for Jump! inc., and millions of other men and women who would lose their livelihoods should the industry be disrupted by an imprudent attempt to change the system.

“Of course, there does appear to exist a potential minimal side effect resulting from the vault-locomotion P. Strobus-summit-reaching methodology currently in practice,” it is said by those who know of such things, “for the maximal altitude thus reachable appears to be perhaps diminished slightly from the days of prehistory when H. jumpans once, perhaps, used to c***b to the top of P. strobus [1], but of course all records from this time are highly unreliable and are often prone to inaccuracies because of distortions introduced into the historical record by those who argue against science. And of course, even if this were, hypothetically, the case, there are numerous benefits altogether removed from the variable of the maximal ligneous plant altitude, such as the P-Strassville metric and others, summarized in [2]; and this would in no way be any reason whatsoever to consider the alteration of the jumping methods currently in place, or, if our indiscretion will be excused for even mentioning this, to alter whether or not the jumping method is actually performed.”

But even though there is clearly no reason to alter the jumping methods currently in place, still, those who know of such things do decide to breed trees to be a little shorter so that people are able to jump to the top of anything more than saplings. Eventually, the stories of trees once taller than a meter become wild fancies of prehistory, and almost entirely likely to be untrue.

“Of course,” it is said by people who know of such things, after the ideal dwarf-tree was bred and humanity was genetically engineered so that the costly resources required to surgically remove those portions of the body and mind unnecessary for jumping to the top of trees no longer have to be spent, because people are now born the proper way (costly resources that are now reinvested into the jumping economy), “of course, now that we have had so much success improving the ability of H. jumpans to do what we are obviously meant to do, we may now turn our efforts elsewhere. This paper is meant to show that the next opportunity for improvement is the eradication of the obviously illogical and nonsensical psychological pathology, whereby the patient is, obviously, aware that to jump to the top of a tree is their main goal in life and that not being able to jump well is the only barrier standing in their way to living a fulfilling and meaningful life; but they nevertheless incessantly put off the completion of their daily jumping practice and tree vaulting. As clear evidence of the fact that this activity is harmful and must be eradicated, we have the fact that the people, when avoiding their tree jumping, often do unproductive and useless activities (as to the possibility that people might live satisfying lives if they were not obligated to center their lives around tree jumping, that they might not succumb to the most addictive lowest common denominator of distraction if what they considered to be valuable was not idiotic and unengaging, well, this possibility is evidently too laughable and ridiculous to even be considered for a moment, and should be expelled from the reader’s mind at once). We advocate a multidisciplinary approach of treatment for these aberrant people, whom we have decided to term procrastinators, incorporating prescriptions of recently developed pharmaceutical medications that improve focus on jumping, to prevent distraction; the earlier teaching to young children of the benefits of tree jumping, and not waiting, as is now common, the whole nine months of formative development until a child is born; but no real progress is made if we do not improve ourselves fundamentally: we suggest the authorization of further attempts to modify the underlying psychological structure of the brain so as to make the desire to jump up trees even more of a fundamental aspect of the thoughts of H. jumpans than it, obviously, already is.”