Yesterday's Jam...

Ok, so supposedly I was wrong in my assertations yesterday. However instead of being reasonable and accepting my human fallibility, I intend to be unreasonable and try and change the world (George Bernard Shaw said it could happen so it must be true).

I understand that the high view of millennia from year 1 up to and including 1000, but lets face it, that doesn't make any fucking sense. Dionysius Exiguus placed the date of Christ's birth on the 25th December of the year before Anno Domini, but surely that's 1 BC, yet how could Christ have been born in 1 year before Christ? He couldn't, he could however have been born in a 'year zero', much like those present in the Hindu, Buddhist and even astronomical calendars. Sometimes science can be accused of trying to spoil people's fun, but the astronomical calendar has this particular issue bang on.

The Gregorian calendar is based on an inherent fallacy and around an incorrectly dated year 1. In a system based around dates of religious significance, one must analyse these dates, so let's do that. Ok, so Christ was born and 7 days later a new year began, but he wasn't 1 year old, was he? He was a week old. When a child comes out of the womb, one doesn't say, 'oh well, that child's 1 year old then', one says 'the child is a week old' or 'the child is six months old'. I'm 18 years old and am indeed in my 19th year, but that doesn't make me 19, does it?

However Christian stubborness to accept zero (perhaps some fear of nihilism...) would appear to have led to the 'generally accepted' system of centuries beginning from '01, but let's face it, no-one likes that. I am somewhat of a pedant, but when John Howard tried to ruin the Australians' fun by pointing out that the millennium in fact began in 2001, pretty much the entire population of the island thought that he was a bit of a twat and the local media branded him the party-pooper of the century (presumably 1901-2000 by his reckoning... in fact, if the Aussies had really wanted to rile him, they should have produced banners heralding 'John Howard: Massive Twat 1900-1999). The case for year zero was perhaps most eloquently argued by Douglas Adams in his article 'Significant Events of the Millennium' in which he highlights people such as Howard as pedantic spoilsports. If it's good enough for the tongue-in-cheek sci-fi author par excellence, then it's most certainly good enough for me.

When one counts through negative numbers, one must pass zero to make it to positive numbers, so it stands to reason that the descending system of BC should have passed zero to arrive at AD. Now I am aware that that isn't the case, but that doesn't mean that it should be like that, simply that it is like that. Would the populace not be happier, if things were simple and all the years written 201x belonged together?

I would venture that the general public would be far happier dealing with a system from 2000-2009 and etc. Indeed since Y2K many have. Religion is accused of holding less and less sway over the populace and frankly in this particular issue, I can see why. I've never been a huge fan of popular culture, but the pop culture interpretation of this issue is one that I have undying support for. Truth be told, the topic is clouded with so much dispute, that it would appear one must simply 'take their pick' of which method to use, but I know which is neater. The nub of the issue is that this is just one of those debates that keeps on going and drags in philosophers, scientists, the opinionated (of which I am probably a standard bearer) and the downright stubborn.

In real layman's terms, one doesn't get excited when the car milometer rolls over to 10,001, do they? They are rather more interested when (starting from zero, I might add) it reaches the round number and the 9s roll over to reveal the line of zeroes.

If you want to pick holes in my argument, then you're welcome to do so, but I will respond with a vengeance, for I hate being wrong almost as much as I hate Liverpool FC (a lot, if you were wondering). So if you want to nitpick, you're welcome to, but I'll come round with my plastic model of Tim Howard and beat you to death with it. You can try and work out if I'm joking or not.