Common Misconceptions: The New Millennium

Seven/eight years later and I'm still bitter about this.

There's no year zero. The calendar starts with year 1. Thus a grouping of one thousand years, a millennium, ends when the calendar changes to a year ending in 1.

Now the coming of the the "new" millennium in the late nineties was hot shit, acted like it owned the place, didn't take off its shoes, and put its cold, sweaty drink glasses directly on top of the wood surfaces of your furniture without a coaster intermediary. A factor in this was Y2K hysteria to be sure. The story broke ahead of time, because computers were going to think when the calendar switched from 1999 to 2000 that since they only had a two-digit year marker programmed in that the calendar was actually going from 1999 to 1900. And since all computers are in fact working time machines, computers were going to send the world itself back to 1900 and all the technological advances of the twentieth century would become anachronistic and subsequently disappear by way of self-fixing paradoxes.

Also, every digit in the year was going to change and there would be three zeros and that's really cool guys. Zeros be rolling over like on your analog display clock.

Now let me quote a bit of popular culture minutiae, "The Millennium" episode (820) of Seinfeld:

Jerry: Oh, that's interesting, because as everyone knows, since there was no year zero, the millennium doesn't begin until the year two-thousand and one. Which would make your party, one year late, and thus, quite lame.

Jerry is right and he's wrong here. Newman's party would be one year early, not late. Still since that is when everyone else is celebrating the new millennium, it would instead be lame to be the hipster douchebag who chooses to celebrate the new millennium on the night of December 31, 2000 when the general population ("normies") are asking, "Wasn't that last year?"

Ironically (irony: that's still a thing, right?) none of this matters as calendars are superfluous and based around arbitrary starting dates to begin with, and nations systematically changed from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian over the late middle centuries of the second millennium anyway. Plus when we talk of the decades, we talk about the eighties as being from 1980 to 1989, and not 1981 to 1990 because calling '90 a part of the eighties is retarded and counterfactual. All one really needs is an almanac to follow the phases of the moon.

Eugenics

I'd soon as not write this post. It would be some how fitting that way, this being the blog that it is. I first mentioned I would write this post back on Friday, August 8th, 2008. That's when I had all my inspiration and ideas. And I quickly wrote down the barest minimum of those ideas, and set it aside; I'll set the date for one week, I said, and save it as a draft. So here it is, one, nay, two, nay, three, nay, four, nay, five weeks later and here it is. Or the best I felt like writing so many days later.

The main problem with eugenics is that it has been associated in the public consciousness with "miscegenation" (what an ugly word-- clearly constructed to have negative connotations-- for such a beautiful thing) and racial cleansing/purity. I think this is another one we can blame on the Nazis.

But I subscribe to the Khan Noonien Singh theory of genetics, of which I derive the name from the character played by Ricardo Montalbán in the original Star Trek series episode "Space Seed" as well as the second Star Trek feature film The Wrath of Khan. I'll mostly focus on him as he appears in the television episode as no argument in favour of eugenics can be made with that awful hair he has in the movie.

Khan is a genetically-engineered übermensch bred free of mental and physical defects, as well as strong leadership abilities, from a pool of Latin and Indian stock. The key here is race diversity. From all accounts, while certainly ambitious (possibly wildly so), Khan was a benign ruler. Thus, I rule that Star Trek lands firmly on the pro-eugenics side. So just remove the dastardly moustache twirling and plans of world domination and we have a pretty good idea of the (theoretical) benefits of eugenics.

Then for an opposing viewpoint, we have the 1990s film Gattaca. I don't recall Gattaca ever addressing the race card, but apparently Blair Underwood was in the cast, so I think I can unequivocally declare the film not viewing genetics from an anti-miscegenation (grrrr) viewpoint. Gattaca's issue with eugenics is that it will inspire a new class system, one where the genetically-engineered will be earmarked for all the highest positions while any normal person (from now on referred to as "normies") will hit a glass ceiling. Further, these earmarks will be decided by probability calculator, so that any normies who exceed their station, any Ethan Hawkes if you will, will be put back in their place.

Of course, another real problem with eugenics is the same problem that surfaces any time one cultural group becomes assimilated into a bigger wider one. The death of the culture, language, heritage of the original group, and all the unique aspects that set it aside. See Modern China and the reason I was so politically offended by the movie Hero for more.

As a normie, among normies who have proceeded as a species for the past however many epochs, its hard to say if I am in support of any real form of eugenics, whether it be traditional or liberal, as it risks limiting genetic diversity. But I will say that I like to consider myself a Social Darwinist. Then again I consider myself a lot of things.