Reading about the oldest person in the world, the thread on it in MPSIMS, and our general skepticism about religion in general…
Suppose we decided to dump the Anno Domini system? I think, for one thing, it will make us seem awfully young to the alien species we shall meet in due time.
What, in you opinion, would be a more rational basis/event/circumstance to mark the beginning of recorded human history?
Saturday night, October 6, 3761 BCE. The date of the creation of the world, giving us the current year of 5775.
The day that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped on the moon.
More likely, it’ll make us look culturally stagnant. ‘Look at these weirdos, haven’t done anything worth resetting their calendar in over 2000 years!’
I dunno about that Kamino Neko, If you are constantly resetting the calendar whenever the latest big thing comes about you’ve got issues. Maybe when we do the reset we should also go Mesoamerican and have it cycle back to 0.0.0.1 every certain time, long enough to be stable but short enough to be fresh.
If the idea is to do a sort of uniform civil epoch that is culture/religion neutral that itself would be tricky since you’d need consensus on a reference datum that is equally significant (or perhaps even better, insignificant) to most of the world. As it is, for a number of nations and cultures AD is just the Common Civil Era anyway.
Whatever we do, we should start the calendar with Year 100, so the eventual 1900’s will become the 19th Century, 2000-2099 will become the 20th Century, etc. The current system is stupid and confusing.
Which, even in the prospect of people who were alive at the time, seems like a ridiculously inconsequential “turning point” in human history.
To me, the era that ushered in Christianity is pretty congruent with the development of many other historical landmarks. There are not very many events (scientific, political, cultural, etc) that can be dated very much earlier than 1 AD, and BC as we know it pretty well reflects a turning point in becoming “modern humans”. Even without Christ, “Before Caesar” would not be an unreasonable marker. Given that Caesarean-based culture has pretty much dominated the civilization of the human species.
How about we use Unix time for everything?
Partly, I’m thinking of the moon landing as someone who assumes that future humans will continue their exploration of space and that this represents a milestone event in that history. Plus the site of the moon landing is likely to remain undisturbed and dateable by future historians. An alternative might be the time of the first atmospheric atomic bomb tests (and the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I believe these can be dated by the presence of certain radioactive isotopes in the environment that were not present prior to these tests.
The problem with the current system is that the starting date is vague. You might, perhaps, be able to calibrate it by noting the dates of certain astronomical phenomena. (Like we know the dates of various solar eclipses, and I believe these can be calculated.)
By that kind of illogic, we should celebrate a baby’s first birthday when he’s born. Waiting until he’s actually a year old is so stooooopid. :rolleyes:
Well, if “birthday” means the day of your birth, isn’t the day they were born actually their first “birth day”?
“First birthday” actually means the first anniversary of the day they were born, so technically their second “birth day”.
Age is reckoned in terms of number of years completed since a presumptive starting point, which is not such a bad idea considering our poor track record at predicting the future. It is common, in obituaries of very old people, so say “. . . died in her 98th year”, which means age 97, as an honorific to longevity.
Interesting so far.
How about I float the first suggestion that I had in mind, and go all Abraham-centric on your ass: the founding of Uruk in Mesopotamia?
I realize that this suggestion craps all over Egypt, the Indus Valley, China, and Mesoamerica; besides that, any objections?
And yes, probably an exact date would be difficult to pin down - but the system we’ve got now is obviously wrong, too…so.
In the future, our descendants will wonder what the basis of the timekeeping system was, and (poking around recorded history) decide it was the first manned Moon landing. But the truth will be more prosaic:
–A Deepness in the Sky
In a way, we already have: historians nowadays use the abbreviation “C.E.” for “Common Era” (or “Current Era”) instead of “AD” (and “B.C.E.” instead of “B.C.”).
The numbering remains the same, and it isn’t really based on a particular event, since the best historical evidence suggests that Jesus was born 4 or more years “B. C.”
I was thinking about this recently after reading yet another “why haven’t we found aliens yet” article. In a way, if we’re talking about technologically advanced spacefaring civilizations, we haven’t been born yet, or at least we haven’t really hit year zero or one yet. We’re still stuck on Earth, still in the womb so to speak. Our species, and all or most life on Earth could be squished like a bug more or less at any moment and there isn’t anything we could do about it. We haven’t yet reached the milestone of having a sufficiently large and self-sufficient population of humans living off planet that could at least theoretically survive a global catastrophe and continue the human race, indefinitely.
There are all kinds of reasons why a life form could be as advanced as we are, and have little or no concept of “outer space”. A planet where the sky is always completely obscured by dense clouds would not have established an astronomy as early s we did, even before we had settled agriculture or portable wealth.
Exploring outer space is not a unique and exclusive measure of intellectual development
And equally so, a planet without a moon, or without other planets in its star system, may never develop space travel . . . in spite of its other accomplishments.
No way. I see you’re angling for a new Totenfeierian Calendar, but that ship has sailed. It took a few hundred years, but we finally united the world under a consistent calendar, and we Gregs won the naming rights.
That’s pretty extreme, but we could start with the year 0, so at least we wouldn’t have to argue about when centuries start and end. Not that we’re changing calendars. No way, no how. Gregs rule! Woot!
The suggestions I’ve read elsewhere all point out the benefit of having Year Zero being well before any year that we would commonly need to refer to. This makes the Arithmetic a lot easier when comparing dates.
So, basically some point in pre-History. Well before the Sumerians and such. At that depth, we probably wouldn’t care about being off a year or so.
Having something like 1970 being Year Zero makes things too complicated for our numerically challenged friends. “You were born in 24 BYZ? That makes you, umm, carry the [del]1[/del] 2 uh, my head hurts.”
Note that having a Year Zero does not fix the cardinal/ordinal problem of century/millennium names. While the First Century AYZ could be considered to run from 0 to 99, the First Century BYZ still runs from -100 to -1. If anything, it adds confusion.