A.D.

If I were to just leave the title at that, you'd think I'd be doing some kind of post on the naming convention of the years. Something about anno domini Latin for "In the year of our Lord". However, in this case, I mean AD to stand for something else, it has nothing to do with the Western calendar, what I wish to discuss today is this one concept summed up in two English words; after death. I suppose I could be fancy and have done PM and used like post mortem or something but I'm sure you get the general idea, and I'm tired of trying to be witty and creative.

So let's give a little context, where did I come up with the motivation to write on such a (seemingly) morbid subject? Well, a few of the youth kids I know from my church went to a conference called Worldview Academy, and during street evangelism sessions, one of the common lead-in questions used was this: "Where do you go after you die?". It's a question people don't often give much thought to, at least not when they're younger, yet it is a question of utmost importance in life. Perhaps I could say it's a matter of perspective, how? Well, in the sense that knowing the choices of where you end up is a good motivator of what you do now and how you go about doing it. An example of such would be someone studying hard now because he/she wishes to attend a better college/university in the future. It is that goal of the university, say an Ivy League versus a local community college, that pushes our student here to study. If perhaps that example doesn't ring home, it is also the idea of an employee working hard now in hopes of a future promotion and raise.

How does getting into a good school or getting promoted to a better job have anything to do with death? Well, it is that forward looking that we're examining here, both student and employee are looking to what is to come or what they hope to become (where they hope to be) and acting accordingly to put themselves in the best position to reach their goals. Now if we were to expand that to the full spectrum of life, the ultimate inevitability that we can observe in this existence is physical death. We know we were born, we know we will die, we don't really know much about what happens afterwards and we're currently living out the in between. However, if we let what will happen tomorrow affect how we act and live today, all the more should we not let what is ultimately inevitable for all of us affect our lives?

We live in a world of action and reaction, cause and effect, deed and consequence, and so on and so forth. While a lot of time we spend studying where we come from (history), we need also to plan for where we are going and that plan will determine ultimately how we are to live. Let us again consider the situation of a student. Now, a student who aimed to be a doctor would not spend large chunks of time taking literature or discrete mathematics courses, of course not. Our student would take only the necessary courses to graduate and focus his/her studies on subjects that would aid in the pursuit of a career in the field of medicine, taking classes on biology, anatomy, perhaps even pharmacology, and the like. Likewise an aspiring engineer would not stop to study philosphy, anthropology, or history extraordinarily extensively, but would put more effort into the familiarizing himself/herself in the realms of physics, mathematics, and other related sciences (depending on the brand of engineering). As we can see, what we aim for in the future determines what we do here and now. If we aim for nothing, we do nothing. So if where we are going determines what we do now, where is our ultimate destination but death? So therefore, the question of what happens after we die becomes rather important in regards to the meaning of life and the purpose for which we live.

Now I'm not going to come out and claim to be any expert on any sort of theological matters, in this case, afterlife, but there are a few more commonly held views out there that I'd like to explore. To me, there are three major ways we can look at what happens after death; nothing, reincarnation, or heaven/hell. As with the question of where we come from (the ever lengthy debate between creationism and evolution) each of these make a profound impact on how we are to live, I would go as far to say as to what our purpose is. The difficulty in such a question (as simple as it seems on the surface) is that we aren't really certain about it, and there is no way we can be certain about it until we experience it for ourselves (that is, when we die). While there is a great degree of uncertainty, that is no reason to shy away from the question for its impact on how we live is so great we cannot address it quickly enough. Why must we address it quickly? Well simply put, because we could die in any given instant. Morbid, but true. Anyways, I digress, let us press onward.

When I consider the idea of nothingness, I realize it's a relatively difficult idea to really grasp. While conceptually I can kind of imagine the idea of there be nothing, absolutely nothing, it's not something I can easily say that I can imagine. There's a difference, it might seem like I'm contradicting myself, but there's a difference, I can imagine the idea of nothingness, but not really nothingness itself, I suppose the best way to put it would be, ideal versus experiential imagination, or something like that. Sorry for all these minor tangents, but since I generally write colloquially, I'd probably do the same thing if we were actually talking, this way, you can just go back and read everything instead of having me repeat it again.

Anyways, while the concept of nothingness after this life (or death, however you want to put it) seems reassuring in the sense that it's all just over, the more I think about it the more I realize it's a pretty scary concept. So what exactly is the implication of nothing after death? Well firstly, it means that everything here is the be-all-end-all to our existence. Some might agree with that. It just simply means make the most of each moment because this one life is all we have. However, it also means that ultimately, there is no consequence to any of our actions. Life becomes a series of things "you get away with" simply because consequences are only temporal things, there are none afterward, the ultimate consequence is death, and everyone dies anyways, so it's just a matter of how. So if you get to do whatever you want and no adverse consequence comes of it, then great, you've made the most. If for some reason, something bad befalls you, well, it just sucks to be you. Concepts of right and wrong, crime and justice, fairness and unfairness, well, they're pretty arbitrary then, since all's well if you do something "wrong" and get away with it, right? What's to govern that? Society? Okay, perhaps to some degree, but if someone gets away with it, then hey, there's nothing beyond that right? This is starting to get a little abstract, so I'm going to try to bring this discussion to another issue. Let's take the simple law of economics; nothing happens if people don't see an inherent benefit or gain from doing something. I paraphrased that a little, but that's the general gist of it. If that's the case, what reason do I have to sacrifice what I have now for the sake of people tomorrow? For example, going green. Beyond some warm fuzzy feeling, what do I get out of it? I'll be gone, and if there's nothing afterward, I'm sacrificing something (money, comfort, time, just to name a few examples) for no gain to myself, right? Maybe it'll all change when I have children, but if I remain single for the rest of my life, then what benefit do I get from helping people in the future? Well, if I spend enough money, maybe a place in the history books, but again, if there's nothing after life, what good is it? It's not like I'll somehow know if I get mentioned in some 7th grader's history class as some altruistic gentleman or not. It sort of reminded me of the character the Joker from the most recent Batman film The Dark Knight. If there is no consequence beyond death, then why not live as you please until you die? Okay, so maybe you want to live long and die peacefully, fine, but my point is this, the mob boss that dies peacefully in bed because the police never could convict him is the same as the doctor working pro-bono in Africa who succumbed to some disease because of the poor living conditions. They both died naturally, and they go... nowhere, they become nothing. Intuitively, we want to make a distinction, but why? One impacted more people? Well, how about this example, two families, classic rags to riches story, both the fathers were poor but each managed to become successful and wealthy and provide for his family and generations to come. The difference, one came about his wealth through honest hard labor, the other through illegitimate and illegal practices. Both pass away quietly and peacefully in their old age. So now that they're both dead, they're the same, nothing. Okay... so, if the thief steals and gets away with it ends up the same as the man who sweat and work for every single dollar of his paycheck, then why bother with niceties like justice and law and order. It's the same as an investment, high-risk, high reward, low-risk, low reward. Since there is no ultimate consequence, those that are willing to face death (like say suicide bombers), can't be wrong. Sure we can condemn their actions, but hey, what're you going to do about it? They became nothing, just like everyone else before them, and just like all of us will after them. The victim and the perpetrator are both the same. Nothing. Intuitively, that just seems wrong, intuition is there for a reason. While intuitively we want to answer the question "Do you want to be remembered poorly?" with a no, if nothing were to come after death, then, what does it matter if I am remembered at all? It's not like the more I'm remembered the more I'm less nothing. Then again, that could be speculation on my part, but if we simply cease to exist as soon as our physical body expires, then, what reason have we to believe that by the will of others we can come back into existence?

If we look next into the idea of reincarnation, we find that the issue of consequence and action addressed via the means of karmic retribution. Our mob boss above who got away with stealing money will then be subject to a worse life the next time around in the great wheel of reincarnation, perhaps he will become a pauper, perhaps he'll become reincarnated as some beast of some form or another, a lowlier being than that of a human. Certainly the idea of getting another life based on how you do in this one brings some sense of consequence to our actions, but there's also a certain sense of futility to it, as if there's no real goal in mind. A lot of proponents of reincarnation say that we as humans are striving to become one with everything and thereby nothing, as far as I understand it, but if we're to become nothing, isn't that really just the same as what we discussed above, just with more rules and a more convoluted method getting there. I'm not here to really get into a whole lot of theology though, let's discuss the idea that you get a "better" life the next time around for the "good" life that you live now. First and foremost, we need a definition of what is "good". I think inherently we all have a general sense of what it is, but then when it comes to some more conflicting issues (like helping someone at the expense of another) then what is "good"? However, that also is another issue regarding ethics and morals that I don't intend to cover here, so the second issue then is what is a "better" life? There really isn't any apt measurement of what is "better" or "worse" in terms of living. Certainly, those who can provide for themselves are generally considered to have "better" lives than those who are starving, but how far does it go with haves and have-nots? Are more riches, more fame, more prominence, more whatever, really indications of a better life? Are we to say that an upper-middle class family having luxury cars, a large 4 bedroom home, the ability to fund its children through Ivy League college education, parents successfully working prominent positions, but on the brink of divorce due to family strife, disagreements, and miscommunication really lead a better life than that of a lower-middle class single-income family living happily and quietly in a small 2 bedroom apartment? What makes one life better than the other? Which situation would you rather be in? Is it physical posessions or is it the state of mind? We see people both in prince and pauper like situations with both kinds of mindsets. If we were to go further with the idea of potential reincarnation into non-human creatures, how do we know that a dog or insect live "worse" lives than that of a person? It's impossible. While the idea of consequence is there, it's fairly arbitrary given reincarnation, it really poses more questions than it answers, while there is the idea of action and reaction, choice and consequence, there is not much in terms of rhyme or reason behind how it is applied, in other words, there's really no feasible way to arbitrarily assign what kind of life is better than another, it's just life.

Finally then, is this concept of an afterlife, a final reckoning siphoning out the people between the two planes, as we'll call them, heaven and hell. It serves to say that there is an ultimate judgment that determines our place after our place here on this world in this life. What is this heaven then? Well, I can't say for sure as I've never been there, but from what I can reason, it can't be anything we can imagine. Some would have heaven being nothing but wealth and a blissful life of doing nothing, I'm pretty sure there are a good number of people that pretty much live that sort of lifestyle here and now, so if heaven can be achieved on earth then what need do we have for it? However, regardless of what exactly it is, it addresses the issue of what happens after one dies, and it gives each person a purpose, that is, an ultimate consequence for his/her life. It gives each of us a direction to move towards, and that is why, intuitively it seems the most reasonable and feasible answer. As a final note, allow me to point to Pascal's Wager, while I don't necessarily endorse those who have a flippant attitude towards it, it is something to ponder. Pascal's Wager states, that if I believe in God and I'm wrong about it, and there's nothing after death, then nothing happens, the same thing happens to me as everybody else, but if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, then the consequences are both dire and eternal. Something for us to ponder and think about.

Mac vs PC

This has been a long-standing debate, that recently has been revived with the new purported "Mac revolution". I'm going to be completely honest here, I am a PC user, but I've used Macs and can appreciate the product that Apple puts onto the table. So the debate remains which is better, Macs or PC, which ultimately boils down to whether the Mac OS is better than Windows (though now that Macs can install Windows on them the it's not a huge issue). My longstanding position has been that Macs are inherently more stable (less prone to crash) and overall better for multimedia/artistic endeavors, whereas PC is just simply the more practical. While the proprietary software available with the Mac OS may be far superior to those offered by Windows; iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, and GarageBand to Windows Movie Maker, Windows Picture Editor, Windows Media Player, and some proprietary Windows audio recording device, there are enough available freeware software that are equally if not more powerful than the basic software offered with either OS (Picasa, Winamp, and Audacity for example, leaving only a sufficiently powerful movie maker unavailable via freeware, at least as far as I know).

While it appears that more and more people are using Macs, and with the advent of the ever-popular "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" commercials, Apple still remains fifth in the US computer market and is a non-factor in the global scheme of things. The problem for Apple? Simply put, they cost too much. What's the difference? Well, let's take a look:

Let's say we look at a standard 13" MacBook Pro, the specs are as follows:

2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
2GB memory
160GB 5400-rpm hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor
1280x800 13.3-inch widescreen display
2 USB 2.0 ports
1 firewire 800 port
Mini display port
iSight camera
SD card input

I didn't include a lot of the physical builds of the Mac, but I hardly think that makes a significant difference. The price you pay for this is $1199, at least.

Now let's look at Dell, the number 2 producer, I pick Dell because I can pick specs to match as close as possible the specs the MacBook Pro has:

2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T6600
2GB shared dual channel DDR2
160GB 5400rpm hard drive
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100
1280x800 13.3-inch widescreen display
2.0 megapixel camera

I'm not sure on the number of ports, if there's a firewire or SD port, but honestly, those are rather tertiary when deciding whether or not to get a laptop. That being said, this model ends up being $599.

So what in the MacBook Pro warrants doubling the price? Hardware-wise the only difference I see is possibly in the video card, where the Apple product has the superior NVIDIA GeForce card to the Intel graphics accelerator. While it's hard to price out laptop video card specs, the most expensive onboard desktop video card runs at $300, and I'm inclined to believe that it performs better than any integrated laptop graphics card, and even if Intel gave away it's integrated graphics card, it doesn't account for $600 price difference overall. So what's the other difference, well, if we consider the difference between the number of USB ports and the like are rather negligible (you can get convertors and hubs and the like for about $20 if you look hard enough), the only major difference then would be the OS.

Windows runs for anywhere between $100 and $200 depending on what you're looking for. Mac OSX runs for $99. Wait, what? So the Mac OS, at least on its own costs less than Windows? Hold on, how does that work? Well, for that we'd have to look a little into the construction of the computers themselves. The chipsets that are built for each computer company (that is, HP, Dell, Acer, Apple, Toshiba, Lenovo, etc...) are designed to be able to support a specific OS design. If you didn't know (don't try this) this is the reason why Mac OS cannot be installed onto any non-Apple computer. The chipset for Apple (now made by Intel) were specifically designed for the Mac OS (and more recently enabled to be Windows compatible) whereas the other PC chipsets are designed more generically with no specific OS in mind, though Windows is the primary use. What the chipset gains with versatility in the ability to work with Linux and Windows it loses out in the stability that an OS specific chipset (like those in Macs) provide. So in short, Mac OSX is completely useless to you except as a coaster unless you already own a Mac, which in turn is more expensive than its PC counterparts.

Now I'm not here to bash Macs, seriously, my point is this, it really depends on what you're trying to do. For the average layman/non-computer person, you're paying a hefty premium, almost double the price on basically everything (let's not even begin to discuss accessories) for a few less blue screens and forced system reboots, let's be honest with ourselves, that's about it. Some might pull out the argument that fewer people try to hack Macs and therefore you're less prone to viruses and worms and the like, but fewer hackers on Macs also entails fewer programmers on Macs, meaning a vastly smaller number of software compatibility. My point is simply this, figure out what you need your computer for. I'll admit that the Mac OS is sleeker and probably has a lower learning curve than that of Windows.

Since a lot of Mac users are PC converts, and if you're reading this, you're probably using a computer of some sort, this is my point, if it's worth it to you, to pay twice the amount of money and relearning a new OS for fewer blue screens and possibly crashes and forced restarts, then by all means, get a Mac. Most gamers probably already know this, but most games probably aren't Mac compatible, and if they are, the patches and updates for Macs are often released much later than the actual release. So who can use a Mac then? Well, as I mentioned earlier, one thing that improved OS stability definitely aids with, is multimedia projects. In my opinion, Macs are artists' computers, they have the graphics capacity and stability to make movie-making and special effects things that make Macs most effective, additionally, Apple also exclusively offers for Macs possibly the most powerful consumer movie-making software in Final Cut Pro (while I think Adobe CS series is good enough, that's another discussion for another time). Additionally, for the more amateur multimedia hobbyist, Mac software is much more friendly and versatile than the Windows equivalents (iMovie vs Windows Movie Maker), having an effective tool without having to look to a confusing third-party product (honestly, I haven't really used anything outside of iMovie or Adobe Premier that I've really liked).

I'm not going to get into the desktop discussion right now, because regardless of how nice a Mac is, people can always buy parts and make a better computer for cheaper if they feel so inclined for the performance. Since Microsoft makes the office software for both Macs and PCs nowadays anyways, the availability and compatibility of general work-related products (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) is fairly universal and doesn't really play into the argument. I'm not going to tell anyone to buy one or the other without hearing any more about his/her specific computer needs, but this is my take on the long over-drawn Mac versus PC discussion.

Something bothering me about Superbowl ad

Sorry haven't posted anything here for a while... if you watched the Superbowl, however long ago it was, you probably vaguely remember an Audi commercial starring Jason Statham (see below) where it's like The Transporter and he gets into a bunch of cars trying to get away from other people. If nothing else, Jason Statham is known as the action guy with a lot of cool if unrealistic driving scenes. Now if you notice, he gets first into a Mercedes-Benz, then later he jacks someone's BMW. Now, maybe it's me, but does it bother anyone else that he refuses to even get into the Lexus (the only Japanese car in the commercial)? Then gets into the Audi and gets away clean. I mean, maybe it wouldn't have been a big deal if it had been like a Peugeot or something (ok so it's a commercial in America, and Americans don't drive Peugeots, but you get my point), or even like a Volkswagon (ok, not really in the same "class" of cars, being more of an economy brand). Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but then I remember the quote, "Nothing goes into commercial advertising on accident." Audi doesn't like Lexus?