Some questions and observations come to mind as I read a little:

The Burj sets many new height records: notably, in addition to being the tallest building in the world now, it’s the tallest structure too, surpassing even radio towers that were taller than any building. And it has more floors than any other building, the highest observation deck, and the highest swimming pool.

The glitz and spectacular stuff about the building seem to be counterbalanced by the negative: The Dubaians apparently are in massive debt (not as massive as the U.S., of course).  Dubai is one of the emirates that make up the UAE, and after having over-extended itself (perhaps by massive building projects?), it was bailed out by the neighboring emirate of Abu Dhabi, who propped up Dubai with billions of dollars to cover its debts. In gratitude, Dubai named its premiere landmark “Burj Khalifa” after Abu Dhabi’s emir (and UAE President) Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Maybe everything will turn out OK in the long term for Dubai, but apparently a lot of people in the area see impending economic collapse. Maybe it’s a good investment to build huge developments like Downtown Burj Khalifa (of which the tower is the centerpiece), World Islands and Palm Islands to attract visitors. The idea is to move Dubai’s economy toward tourism and away from oil, since the relatively small oil reserves that made Dubai rich are not going to continue to carry it.

Maybe they bit off more than they can chew, needing outside lenders to support their ambitious investing, if these building projects of unprecedented scale are truly investments. Or maybe they got the big head, letting their pride get in the way of planned growth, the allure of being recognized for their impressive achievements (kind of like these guys) obscuring the purpose of those achievements (presumably to have a strong economy and a stable culture).  If the latter is the case, then it has surely already backfired: do a Google search on the term “Burj Khalifa”, and what you’ll find is more information on Dubai’s economic woes than the impressiveness of their tower.

Oh, and the biggest question in my mind: when will Alain Robert make the climb?

Wait, not so fast.

I’m not convinced that this is the beginning of a new decade.  I think Jan 1, 2011 will be the start of a new decade, the current one ending on Dec 31, 2010.  My reasoning is manifold:

• We count from 1 to 10, not from 0 to 9; so the decade should go from 2001 – 2010, not 2000 – 2009.
• There is no year 0.  Not that Wikipedia is the final authority for all things, but the Gregorian Calendar entry asserts what we all know: “AD 1 immediately follows 1 BC”.
• Because there is no year 0, the first decade is 1-10; the second decade is 11-20, the third is 21-30, etc.  By extension, the current decade is from 2001-2010, and the next one will be from 2011-2020.
• We have precedent for numbering periods starting with 1 and ending with a multiple of 10.  The 1st Century was from 1-100; the 2nd Century was from 101-200; and so on.

Interestingly, Wikipedia makes mention of a disconnect between the cultural notion and mathematical/scientific notion of when the 21st Century began.  Even Wikipedia concludes that according to math and logic, the current century runs from 2001-2100, but gives mention of some other “cultural” notion of the current century having begun in 2000, basically declaring this cultural notion incorrect (as I do). Elsewhere Wikipedia affirms that the 21st century runs from 2001-2100; furthermore the 20th Century ran from 1901-2000, and the 19th Century ran from 1801-1900, etc.  If we are going to redefine the 21st century as having begun on January 1, 2000, then we have shorted a previous century by one year, making it not a century at all but rather a “99 year period”.

More authoritative is the U.S. Naval Observatory, stating the same thing, that “the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.”  Furthermore, it defines millennia as well:

Similarly, the 1st millennium comprised the years AD 1-1000. The 2nd millennium comprises the years AD 1001-2000. The 3rd millennium began with AD 2001 and will continue through AD 3000.

Why all this talk about Centuries if the discussion is supposed to be about Decades?  My fourth bullet point above is supported by these definitions: the precedent is that we group millennia and centuries in groups of 1000 or 100 years, beginning with the year 1:

• Millennia: 1-1000, 1001-2000, 2001-3000, …
• Centuries: 1-100, 101-200, 201-300, … ,1801-1900, 1901-2000, 2001-2100, …

By extension, then, a decade should be a grouping of 10 years beginning with the year 1: 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, … , 1991-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2020, …

So, I remain unconvinced by the popular cultural notion of us having just begun a new decade.  In my mind, we’ll have to wait another year.