The New Decade Starts on January 1, 2010
Dec 15th, 2009 by Micah Tillman | 3 Comments |
So, I was just reading “6 Terrible Names People Are Trying to Give This Decade” over at Cracked.com (it’s my lunch break, so I’m allowed to not be writing my classes’ final exams for a few minutes).
In the comments section, readers got into an argument about whether 2010 is the beginning of the next decade, or the end of this decade.
____
I remember getting into the same argument (essentially) back in college when we were partying like it was 1999, because it, in fact, was, and Y2K was going to end the world. (Y2K was the global warming of the 90′s and there were people making money off of it [called "Y2K Consultants"] like there are people making money off of global warming now.)
“There was no Year Zero,” the argument runs, “therefore, each new decade, century, and millennium begins with xx01.”
To which I respond: “You’re going to let a single mistake of the Calendar Maker (who, evidently, and in respect to the BC/AD distinction, was Bede) mess up every decade, century, and millennium forever? That’s a heavy price to pay for the mistake of one person. Nobody actually believes that the year 2000 is the last year of the 1900s, but you want to pretend it is just because the Calendar Maker left the Year Zero off the calendar?”
____
Why not make the First Century AD pay for the mistake, and just get it over with, instead of making every decade, century, and millennium forevermore pay for it?
The First Century only had 99 years, the first decade only had 9 years, and the First Millennium only had 999 years. After all, it’s the First Century/Millennium/Decade that’s missing its zero year. Why make all the other decades, centuries, and millennia pay?
There you go. Problem solved.
____
Alternatively, why not make the First Century BC pay for the Calendar Maker’s mistake? Make it give up the year 1 BC to the First Century AD, and make the First Century AD extend from 1 BC to 99AD. (That’s the approach taken by astronomers, evidently.)
That makes as much sense as saying that 1900 belongs to the 1800s. In fact, it makes even more sense, because you only have to do it once, and everything else falls into place.
____
If you take the “There Was No Year Zero, So Every Decade, Century, and Millennium for the Rest of Time Has to Get Pushed Back a Year” approach, you end up flying in the face of the number system and common sense every ten years (and an additional time every one-hundred, and another additional time every one-thousand).
I personally prefer the “The First Century AD only had 99 Years” option, but that’s just me.

Humans are always trying to awkwardly shoehorn eras between the zeros. I blame fingers and toes.
Fingers and toes indeed.
Which makes me wonder why any cultures ever ended up with anything other than a base-five or base-ten counting system.
And it is kind of handy that a fist looks like a zero.
You make the same mistake the rest of the morons do. It was a not a ‘calendar error’ to make the 10th year number 10 or the 1st year number 1. Count to ten and you start at 1 and finish at 10; you dont start at 0 and finish at 9. Zero is not a number it is shorthand for an absence of numbers. Alas for you ‘common sensers’, a decade contains the numbers 1 through to 10. This is called MATHEMATICS and should be in the grasp of any person with a rudimentary intelligence. Unfortunately, this seems to exclude your good self