There's nothing shameful about growing old. It almost certainly beats the alternative, which as far as anyone knows for certain involves a permanent and irreversible cessation of breathing, followed by the relegation of the party in question's Earthly remains in some way, shape or form to Mother Nature's ongoing compost pile.
In a perfect world continued aging would be cause for pure and unfettered revelry; the greater the vintage of the celebrant, the more extravagant the gala ought to be. But even for those with positive attitudes, birthdays can become burdensome as they begin to accumulate. Each extra year serves as a bleak reminder of one's looming mortality, not to mention other depressingly inevitable events including (but not limited to) creaky joints and sagging body parts; deteriorating eyesight and compromised hearing; and, all too often, degenerating mental capacity.
Today far too many Americans obsess over birthdays; they complain, sulk and grow despondent over them, which doesn't seem right. Maybe it's time to start documenting time spent on the planet in increments other than years.
Certain Native American tribes traditionally measured age by counting the number of moons an individual had lived through. But based on an average lunar cycle (29.53 days), there are only 12 1/3 or so full moons per calendar year, meaning that having one's age expressed that way wouldn't be much different than using the current method. But how about making a more radical alteration? If society kept track of age in months the six people living in my home would turn, in order of birth date, 132, 660, 1008, 540, 108, and 84 during 2012.
Maybe bigger numbers aren't such a bad idea. What if age were customarily kept in units of seven days? There'd be a whole lot more parties, plus who would hassle a neighbor or co-worker about turning 2927 weeks old when he or she is about to turn a none-too-youthful 2478 him/her self?
Were ages recorded in days rather than in years, months, or weeks, I'd have had my 20,000th birthday just last November. What a bash I could have had! While such a system would undoubtedly provide a shot in the arm to the birthday cake industry, other businesses could become unintended collateral damage. Candle-makers might keel over from exhaustion trying to keep up with demand. Then again, with everyone on the planet celebrating a birthday every day, there might well be a need to change certain traditions. Extinguishing flaming wax sticks atop a cake might well go the way of the dodo bird. Lighting and then blowing out a few thousand candles would be equal parts drudgery and danger. And imagine the air pollution in a world where everyone celebrated a birthday every day. It would make late 19th century Pittsburgh look like the Garden of Eden...on a clear day!
While there are clear logistical problems with converting the ages of human beings to days from years, making some modifications in the way America keeps track of the passage of time is at least worth thinking about. And while some innovations just don't make sense, there is one transformation involving the calendar that ought to be considered. While a bonus 24 hours every fourth year is nice, there's no need to add any further time to winter. Ninety-one and one-fourth days of darkness and cold are quite enough, thank you. Reasonable Americans have no quarrel with an extra day every fourth year; most would welcome it even if such an adjustment weren't required to keep the calendar properly aligned with the sun's position as years, decades, and centuries go by.
It's an accepted fact that people born in February are open-minded, accepting, pragmatic, and generous. (Full disclosure: the writer of this essay was born in February.) But we're also painfully aware that our birth month is going to continue to elapse more quickly than any other, with or without an extra day. With that in mind, why not reassign "Leap Day" to some brighter, warmer month? What's the sense in adding an extra 24 hours to our dreariest, darkest, coldest season, even if it's only every fourth year? Why not have April 31st, June 31st, September 31st, or even August 32nd instead?
Besides, having our extra day occur when climatic conditions are more hospitable might help offset the agony of another ongoing quadrennial event. If we're going to have to endure a group of transparently insincere, willfully obtuse, Super-PAC-powered egotists vie for the presidency by trying to seduce America's continually-descending lowest common denominator every fourth year, let's at least get an extra day of good weather for our trouble!
Andy YoungReturn to main page
Font size: