Thursday, February 28, 2008

A Proposed Unified Theory of the New ... What?

I told my twin sister today that a friend of mine is turning forty.

"He doesn't look forty," she said.

"Well," I said, "forty is the new thirty."

But it can't be, we decided, because we're almost thirty. Perhaps forty is the new thirty-five, or maybe thirty-three. We settled on thirty-three, and decided that thirty might be the new twenty-five. These days, many of us twenty-somethings don't even graduate college until our mid-twenties.

Still I wondered, are these "new" ages proportionate to each other? Furthermore, there needs to be a lower limit to the “new” age -- twenty-one is still twenty-one after all, and it's not very healthy for any adult to want to be younger than that. So, I am proposing the following formula to straighten all this out.

If x is the new y, then x * (5/6) = y, for values of x greater than or equal to 25.

Thus, thirty is the new twenty-five, forty is the new thirty-three, and fifty is the new forty-two. Even twenty-five becomes the new twenty-one using this simple formula.

For values of x less than 25, x = y. It kind of makes sense, because you feel happy about getting older until you hit twenty-five, then you start to regress.

For larger values of x, I am going to stick with the 5/6 factor, even though it might fall apart above 100. If you make it to 110, you deserve to call it the new ninety-two.

In case you're wondering, I really don’t have this much time on my hands. Only a lack of sanity and a keyboard.

Update to add, apologetically: Somehow I decided that it would be a good idea to make a chart.


Christian said...

Hey, you should make a chart of this. Then doodle in the margins :-)

sheribomb said...

I was thinking of making a chart, but ran out of time last night. "Having time" is, of course, a relative term when one is wasting said time on the internet, so I updated the post with a handy dandy chart...