"Mac vs PC"

We have all seen the “I am a Mac, and I’m a PC” television ads. Justin Long (“Mac” – a skilled actor who retains a boyish appearance and cultivates a suave yet youthful demeanor) and John Hodgman (“PC” – a wildly inventive and always slightly over-weight comedian) stand together against a blank white background. “PC” usually opens with seemingly limitless optimism about the product he represents, only to be disappointed, and then embarrassed when his latest defense of the PC and its operating systems and its applications is utterly undermined. Of course, the actual superiority of Apple computers challenges credulity, and we are all encouraged to wink at some of the near falsehoods at the fuzzy edges of these ads – falsehoods somehow made unimportant in the general spirit of humor and entertainment.

It is these ads, in fact, that suggest the first of three observations I want to make about how Mac computers have come to be symbolically representative of important and controversial elements coursing through contemporary North American culture. For many decades now, the “hard sell” approach to advertising has been revitalized. Billy Mays’s irritating voice (now silenced by his early death) and carnival hucksters like Vince Shlomi (“Shamwow”) are just the grotesque edge of the hard sell approach. The novel “Winesburg, Ohio” suggested long ago that Americans were attracted to grotesques (although one thinks that Sherwood Anderson did not really have these characters fully in mind). Fifty years ago, all of my teenaged friends and acquaintances sneered at the hokey lies of the hard sell. How could anyone succumb to lies and rants of these men (yes, they were all men; watch the TV show “Mad Men”)? We all loved the VW ads or any product that had even a hint of self-deprecation in their message.

The interesting thing about the “Mac” ads is the subtle soft sell underlying the blunt implication that Macs are better than PCs. This soft sell is founded on the underlying decency of both central characters – “Mac” and “PC.” They meet like well-meaning acquaintances, if not quite friends. In fact, they seem to genuinely like each other. There is no muscle flexing and fist-pumping. “Mac” cringes at “PC’s” humiliations and sympathizes with his failures even as “PC” seeks to convince his counterpart of at least some redeeming qualities to his product. True dialogue is attempted. “Mac” remains open to “PC’s” repeated entreaties. The message remains that a Mac is a better computer but that there is a place for PCs in this world as well. There is a hint of the old idea of “market share” as opposed to a Hobbesian war of “all against all.” One would almost think we were back in the 1960s. It is these Mac ads, through their contrast with standard hard-sell ads, that reminds us of the relentless marketing barrage we are exposed to in contemporary times – a barrage that is often aggressive, visceral, and visually manipulative.

The continued existence of Mac computers leads to my second observation: this one is about the centripetal forces of what may start out as capitalism but become something else. No one can agree on the “market share” of Apple computers. Estimates range from 3% to over 20%. It all depends on what you are counting. Nevertheless, Apple computers will never dominate the computer market – not even the personal computer market. This is a consequence of clear forces (not truly “market” ones) that were applied early on in the history of computers. Microsoft on created an early monopoly on operating system software. With no large competitors in the business market, they established the dominance of PCs in every medium-to-large workplace. All institutions had to follow. In my university, only two or three departments (my history department was one) used computers early on. We all used Apple computers. In the late 1980s, as computers became ubiquitous, institutions such as ours adopted Microsoft’s operating systems and IBM hardware. Those of us who clung to Mac’s (and that would be everyone who started with one) were marginalized in many ways. We had more trouble communicating through the university system. We had far, far less tech support. Our then president even told one unit manager that she needed to get rid of “that garbage” (Macs) that she had been using in her unit. Whether it wants to or not, Apple can never intercede in a market that is so interlinked. Much of what passes for capitalism is in fact collusion at best and monopoly at worst. There are no ways, not even anti-trust legislation, to stop this juggernaut, and the experience of Apple computers proves it.

Last week I attended a lecture on why we should still read Charles Darwin’s “Origin of the Species." The speaker pointed out that evolutionary theory has advanced substantially from its origins in the 19^th century, and that many contingencies – genetic, molecular, cultural and human – intercede to modify evolutionary change. For some odd reason, I thought of Mac computers. If some kind of genetic fitness were the sole governing element, Mac computers would be the overwhelming favorite of all personal computer users. Their operating systems, especially from OS X through “Snow Leopard,” are superior in every way. They are more reliable, intuitive, and sophisticated. The Apple operating systems have better graphics than Microsoft systems, and always have had. The artistic design of Mac personal computers (even some of the retro models) have always been far in advance of the gray-flannel-suit appearance of PCs. So, why has Apple not dominated and driven out the inferior species? Instead, it is as if Neanderthal wiped out humans. Some of the answers are suggested above in regard to faux capitalism. Other answers are cultural. Apple designers – especially Steve Wasniak – just seemed too much on the cultural margins of North American life. Macs were too “artsy.” They had too little gravitas. Macs seemed to be the technological equivalent of youthful rebellion. For a highly – and I DO mean highly – conformist culture like that in the U. S. and Canada, Macs just seemed too trivial. [Apple Ipods would be another matter since they were, initially, not part of an interconnected business culture. They did not do our work. Ipods merely entertained. (Although all of that, along with Iphones and Blackberries are going to change the notions of frivolity attached to MP3 players and Ipods)]. Evolution, therefore, is a lot more complex, based on a lot more SHIFTING contingencies, than many scientists would like to believe.

Oh, and I guess it is clear that I have always used Apple computers.

Creationism v. Evolution: Hope, Meaning, and Truth

   Why do the contentious words over creationism (or whatever current noun is chosen to represent those ideas) and evolution never go away? Why, since the 1920s (at least), have we had an angry war between both sides, even though Darwinian evolution and Christian Higher Criticism lived a comfortable co-existence through the 19th century? Why isn't one side declared the victor? or both sides seen as having something to say? or both sides seen as having nothing to say?

  I think the answers to these questions lies in what is NOT said by, or about, either camp. The answer does not have to do with the truth of science and the falsity of religion, although both of these claims can be made in most cases in my view. My position is clear:  1) the "truthfulness" of the claims of evolution are born out every time evolution is tested; 2) the specific claims of fact by creationists are almost always false, or at least deceptive and incomplete.  So, why is the discussion on-going, persistent, seemingly ubiquitous. Let me deal with each side, and how each side is perceived by the other side.

  First, let's take the side of evolution, which I am certain is accurate insofar as it has been developed and tested. This is a theory but not, as too many say, "only a theory." A theory is an idea tested and found accurate insofar as it can be made accurate by known facts. The facts about evolution are "true." But scientists, and others, assure us that all they want to do is to explain the known universe -- from its smallest particles to its cosmic dimensions, from how the smallest elements in the universe work, to how the universe has unfolded and is unfolding. There is a disingenuousness in this, despite the fact that popular science and popular culture likes to believe there is a quest for pure knowledge.

   The fact is that the "truthfulness" of science leading to an understanding of a knowable universe is only a romantic, perhaps just mythic, part of the scientific enterprise. Pure science -- just finding out how things work -- is a noble ideal held by many scientists (including my son) but none of them would be funded for any of this if there were not others who would willingly exploit scientific discovery for practical purposes.

   Let's take neuroscience as an example. Does anyone really believe that we fund neuroscience just to find out how the brain works?? Does anyone really believe that once we find relevant particulars about brain function that we will not eagerly exploit that knowledge for practical, applied purposes? Do any neuroscientists today believe that they are not a part of a large project to "correct" brain function when necessary. Who, even among an ignorant public, would deny science and those who apply scientific discoveries, the right to stop Parkinson's disease, or MS, or Altzheimer's disease, or ---- and now the road gets slippery --- depression, mental retardation, anti-social behavior . . . .  You fill in the rest of the blanks, and what you will finally get is the re-formation of the human being, ultimately made smart, stable, less varied, and, well, not quite so "human" anymore.

   As Hannah Arendt pointed out long ago in "The Human Condition," the "truthfulness" of science is NOT about meaning, it is about factual certitudes that are put to applied use -- in this case she was most interested in atomic weaponry. Oppenheimer was not an innocent bystander. Nor are scientists in most fields. They all know that their work will be applied to some human "problem." This does not mean that scientists are villains; it just means that scientists are part of a social body that is all too willing to use whatever technology or use that science offers.

   What is the point to all of this? The point is that the way we see science, and the way too many scientists present the issues, is too coy. Science is not just about discovery, it is about manipulation of nature, and manipulation of nature inevitably means changing the nature of nature. Above all, it means changing "MEANING" in a very large sense.  It is this that many religious advocates cannot abide -- that science will define "meaning" by its pro-action, not its discoveries, and perhaps even that science itself has become a religion of a sort.

   And, what of creationism? or creation by design (I saw an article in the local newspaper that literally re-hashed William Paley's watch-maker argument, an argument debunked even in his own day by Hume and others). What creationists (in their hearts) want to do is to claim that only in religion (usually only in THEIR religion), human beings will find "MEANING." Religion is about meaning, about our relationship to nature, to everything.

   But creationists, and many other advocates of religion, broadly over-reach. They want their cake and eat it too. Unsatisfied with accepting the "mystery" of God or of their beliefs, they want the meaning of their religion and facts about the natural world to be entirely true. Kingsley Amis wrote a prophetic little novel in the 1960s entitled, "I Want It Now," about a super-selfish young woman. She would be the prototype of modern hedonism. What we forget is that Creationists, even the most humble religious followers (outside of Islam and Buddhism), are part of what I define as the "I want it now; I want it all" culture. If others grew up with a sense of material entitlement, they all grew up with a sense of "religious entitlement." There is very little humility, Christian or otherwise, in the demand by some "believers" that the Bible is literally true or that their religion is the possessor of all truth. True religion is about a lot more mystery and uncertainty than these folks would have it.

   Science plays God with nature, and religion corrupts its best qualities by demanding to be the possessor of "truthfulness" that is patently not true in "fact." Science needs to stop pretending to be the innocent; it has not been for more than a century at least. Religion needs to stop pretending that it "knows" factual truth about nature; there was a day -- well, centuries ago now, or at least so it seems -- when it would have been heresy of the highest sort to pretend to know God's will. And, so, there is no end in sight to this sometimes circus-like debate, no matter how "smart" people get, or probably how truly pious and pacific religion becomes.

Update - January 17, 2009:

   In some ways, the essay above has a conclusion that needs re-stating in a somewhat different way. My stance is that both religion and science have failed in their humanism to some degree. While it seems to me that science is completely correct regarding the facts of evolution and the weakness of the creation by design argument, some scientists are using this truth as a campaign against theism and even religion as a whole. This atheism has been a little heavy-handed, suggesting that religious believers are ignoramuses, and ignoring the historical development and evolution of religious belief and practice to suggest the hyper-revolutionary idea that several millennia of human religious behavior should and can be obliterated. This angry atheism ignores religion as a critical, if not necessary, part of human history and society. It is very hard to anticipate a future in which religion -- which is, after all, a human way of dealing with matters of love, brother/sisterhood, redemption, and many other qualities necessary to living life well -- will not exist in some form or other and even thrive.

   For its part, religion has become unpleasantly defiant and angry in its own right. Most of the tenets of religion -- piety, forgiveness, love, acceptance -- have been utterly lost in the battle over evolution and its fall-out. More than that, advocates of creationism make preposterous arguments -- arguments that only demean human intelligence and human promise. They belittle hundreds of years of science and the accumulation of knowledge, casting aside human historical developments as readily as the most radical atheists.

  In short, both sides remove themselves from the civilization, culture, society, and standards of humanity that they should nuture in order to posit arguments of pure truth. Both sides need to exercise a little more humility.