Sunday, August 15, 2004
Tick, tick, tick
I'm going to turn 27 in a couple of days. Clearly, birthdays aren't nearly as exciting as they used to be. I don't mind getting older (although the symptoms thereof, like being sore the day after a softball game, I could certainly do without), but the concept of birthdays just doesn't compare to what they were when I was, I guess, 12 or so. I wonder exactly at what age birthdays lose their luster. 13? 15? 17? Well, whatever age it is, it's definitely an odd number. Maybe it's when you can afford the presents that you get, so it's not so cool. Getting together with friends on a birthday is definitely a highlight, though. That's probably the best part.
While I'm on the birthday topic, I have a new suggestion for adjusting important birthdays. Conventionally, it's the multiples of 10 that are important. 10 is not so big, but 20 is kind cool. 30, 40, and 50 are big deals. Certainly 100 is a huge one. Yeah, 21 is a big celebration, and if you're Jewish, then 13 is a big deal too. But really, the multiples of 10 are kind of arbitrary. Does the fact that we happen to use base-10 counting really mean that the critical stages of maturity occur at those counting-based intervals? Seems quite arbitrary to me.
Instead, I propose that we celebrate birthdays based on a concept that is independent of any counting system: Square numbers. Every birthday that is a square number should be a big one. You think I'm crazy, but hear me out: First of all, we've already talked about how birthdays are a bigger deal when you're younger. Shouldn't the celebrations reflect that? Using only square numbers, half of the big birthdays would occur before you turn 25. As you get older, they get fewer and farther between, but you get more mature anyways, so you appreciate them more.
Ok, so the distribution is improved. But what about the actual ages we'll be celebrating. Well, first, we'll start with 1. I think we can all agree that living a year is a big deal. Next, is 4. Now, this is not necessarily more important than 3 or 5, but seems reasonable - you're turning from a toddler into a real kid. Then, there's 9. Is 9 any different from 10? Honestly? No. So, in the first ten years of life, when much more development happens, you have 3 big birthdays, compared to the single 10-year big birthday of yesteryear.
Another nice bonus of my system is that two big birthdays that get otherwise skipped (or have to be celebrated with some sort of auxiliary celebration) are dead-on square numbers: 16 and 25. Now, these are big deals in American society at least: 16 is when you start driving, and 25 is just, well, you're starting to get old. It seems like it should be a bigger deal than it is, honestly. Insurance rates are supposed to go down. I remember turning 25 and being unimpressed. I think there should be some sort of rite of passage there, or at least a big party. I will admit that my system misses the grand moderately-old age of 21, but obviously, base-10 didn't hit it either. And in base-10, you just celebrated at 20! Space things out, guys! Under my system, you at least have 21, pretty close to right between 16 and 25. Gotta spread out the merriment.
Now, I haven't turned them yet, but 30 and 40 are just the "getting old" celebrations. Why not combine them into one big 36 celebration? No need to make people more miserable than necessary. And if 50's a big deal, well, 49 should be just as cool. I guess at 60 (or 59.5, or whatever) you can start collecting your 401k, which I suppose might be worth celebrating, but I believe being 65 makes you a senior citizen, so why not celebrate your last year of non-senior citizen when you turn 64?
Now we're getting to the older years. Frankly, 70, 80, AND 90 might be too much for an elderly person to handle. But just one big bash at 81? It could be huge! And, of course, 100 is a big deal. Let's celebrate! It's square AND a multiple of ten! Who knew?
Now, if someone lives to be 121, my system does have a flaw - really, ever year past 100 should be celebrated. So, this person would have lost out on 110 and 120. But maybe, just maybe, if people knew that they'd have a ridiculously awesome bash at 121, they'd stick it out a bit longer. You know what? Maybe that's not such a good idea. My system ends at 100. Do whatever you want afterwards.
This system needs to be adopted immediately. Really, there's no excuse not to. Same number of "big" birthdays, distributed more appropriately, and hitting most of the key milestones. I suppose it might hurt the greeting card industry, which would have to start producing 25, 36, 49, etc. cards, but that can't be that big a deal. I may be a nerd, but I'm a nerd who makes sense.
While I'm on the birthday topic, I have a new suggestion for adjusting important birthdays. Conventionally, it's the multiples of 10 that are important. 10 is not so big, but 20 is kind cool. 30, 40, and 50 are big deals. Certainly 100 is a huge one. Yeah, 21 is a big celebration, and if you're Jewish, then 13 is a big deal too. But really, the multiples of 10 are kind of arbitrary. Does the fact that we happen to use base-10 counting really mean that the critical stages of maturity occur at those counting-based intervals? Seems quite arbitrary to me.
Instead, I propose that we celebrate birthdays based on a concept that is independent of any counting system: Square numbers. Every birthday that is a square number should be a big one. You think I'm crazy, but hear me out: First of all, we've already talked about how birthdays are a bigger deal when you're younger. Shouldn't the celebrations reflect that? Using only square numbers, half of the big birthdays would occur before you turn 25. As you get older, they get fewer and farther between, but you get more mature anyways, so you appreciate them more.
Ok, so the distribution is improved. But what about the actual ages we'll be celebrating. Well, first, we'll start with 1. I think we can all agree that living a year is a big deal. Next, is 4. Now, this is not necessarily more important than 3 or 5, but seems reasonable - you're turning from a toddler into a real kid. Then, there's 9. Is 9 any different from 10? Honestly? No. So, in the first ten years of life, when much more development happens, you have 3 big birthdays, compared to the single 10-year big birthday of yesteryear.
Another nice bonus of my system is that two big birthdays that get otherwise skipped (or have to be celebrated with some sort of auxiliary celebration) are dead-on square numbers: 16 and 25. Now, these are big deals in American society at least: 16 is when you start driving, and 25 is just, well, you're starting to get old. It seems like it should be a bigger deal than it is, honestly. Insurance rates are supposed to go down. I remember turning 25 and being unimpressed. I think there should be some sort of rite of passage there, or at least a big party. I will admit that my system misses the grand moderately-old age of 21, but obviously, base-10 didn't hit it either. And in base-10, you just celebrated at 20! Space things out, guys! Under my system, you at least have 21, pretty close to right between 16 and 25. Gotta spread out the merriment.
Now, I haven't turned them yet, but 30 and 40 are just the "getting old" celebrations. Why not combine them into one big 36 celebration? No need to make people more miserable than necessary. And if 50's a big deal, well, 49 should be just as cool. I guess at 60 (or 59.5, or whatever) you can start collecting your 401k, which I suppose might be worth celebrating, but I believe being 65 makes you a senior citizen, so why not celebrate your last year of non-senior citizen when you turn 64?
Now we're getting to the older years. Frankly, 70, 80, AND 90 might be too much for an elderly person to handle. But just one big bash at 81? It could be huge! And, of course, 100 is a big deal. Let's celebrate! It's square AND a multiple of ten! Who knew?
Now, if someone lives to be 121, my system does have a flaw - really, ever year past 100 should be celebrated. So, this person would have lost out on 110 and 120. But maybe, just maybe, if people knew that they'd have a ridiculously awesome bash at 121, they'd stick it out a bit longer. You know what? Maybe that's not such a good idea. My system ends at 100. Do whatever you want afterwards.
This system needs to be adopted immediately. Really, there's no excuse not to. Same number of "big" birthdays, distributed more appropriately, and hitting most of the key milestones. I suppose it might hurt the greeting card industry, which would have to start producing 25, 36, 49, etc. cards, but that can't be that big a deal. I may be a nerd, but I'm a nerd who makes sense.
Comments:
I think birthday's stopped being cool when you were able to afford whatever it is that you were being given. When you're earning a $100-200/day or whatever it is with a typical engineering job, getting $35 from your grandmother just isn't all that exciting. It's nice, but not like it is when you're only getting a $5 weekly allowance.
Of course, birthday's also stop being cool when you aren't around your good friends and have to celebrate alone. Last year (2003), for my 25th birthday, I was by myself all day. And not only by myself, I was moving. And not only moving, but moving by myself. Moving big furniture, like sofas, by myself. Seriously. It was a blast. Well, not really...
I think that instead of doing square numbers, we should celebrate prime numbers. They are much cooler. Like your system, you celebrate the early ones: 1, 2, 3, and 5, which seems just right. Is 4 a big deal? Do you remember your 4th birthday? Didn't think so.
After that, it starts getting thinner, with 7, 11, 13, 17, which all seem appropriate. 13 you're starting do go through puberty, 17 you're done - just right for celebrating the end of such an awkward time. Then 19, you've been old for a few years, 23 you're out of college, and 29, you're still hanging on to youth, but just barely.
Of course, for me, this system doesn't work, as it skips my 26th birthday, which was, by far, the best birthday I'll ever have. Maybe inheriting the Gates fortunte on my 27th would beat it, or being the first human to walk on Mars, or taking over Hugh Hefner's "job" (sleeping with supermodels), or all 3 at the same time, but not by much.
Of course, I hope you all realize that the reason we have a base 10 number system is that we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. When you realize that, it makes it *really* silly when people make a big deal of some fata$$ baseball player hitting his 300th homerun, like there's some big deal between that and 299, or 313, or 284. Or celebrating the year 2000 for that matter, versus 2004, or 1998.
Of course, birthday's also stop being cool when you aren't around your good friends and have to celebrate alone. Last year (2003), for my 25th birthday, I was by myself all day. And not only by myself, I was moving. And not only moving, but moving by myself. Moving big furniture, like sofas, by myself. Seriously. It was a blast. Well, not really...
I think that instead of doing square numbers, we should celebrate prime numbers. They are much cooler. Like your system, you celebrate the early ones: 1, 2, 3, and 5, which seems just right. Is 4 a big deal? Do you remember your 4th birthday? Didn't think so.
After that, it starts getting thinner, with 7, 11, 13, 17, which all seem appropriate. 13 you're starting do go through puberty, 17 you're done - just right for celebrating the end of such an awkward time. Then 19, you've been old for a few years, 23 you're out of college, and 29, you're still hanging on to youth, but just barely.
Of course, for me, this system doesn't work, as it skips my 26th birthday, which was, by far, the best birthday I'll ever have. Maybe inheriting the Gates fortunte on my 27th would beat it, or being the first human to walk on Mars, or taking over Hugh Hefner's "job" (sleeping with supermodels), or all 3 at the same time, but not by much.
Of course, I hope you all realize that the reason we have a base 10 number system is that we have 10 fingers and 10 toes. When you realize that, it makes it *really* silly when people make a big deal of some fata$$ baseball player hitting his 300th homerun, like there's some big deal between that and 299, or 313, or 284. Or celebrating the year 2000 for that matter, versus 2004, or 1998.
# posted by 
: August 16, 2004 at 12:51 AM
: August 16, 2004 at 12:51 AM
So, no one's really provided a good reason why my system isn't better. Kevin's just explained that base-10 is traditional. Well, who cares. That's about the worst reason for doing anything. Shear realizes that 10 is arbitrary, but honestly, prime numbers is just out of control. I think I'm going to take this to someone with authority. Really, I believe it would start with Hallmark. They start making only cards for square numbers (just like they don't make cards for, say, 27), and the world will be at their mercy.
I still like birthdays and like to celebrate them. Each and every damn one of them. And hey man, considering I "babysit" for a "living" I can't afford any presents I might possibly get. I'm thrilled with $20 bucks from my grandma.
laurel
Post a Comment
laurel
# posted by : August 20, 2004 at 7:23 PM
: August 20, 2004 at 7:23 PM
