#pluto discourse

I have a philosophical objection to the idea that we have to err on the side of exclusivity because otherwise we'll have to know too much. I want haumea, makemake and eris to be recognised and taught in classrooms right alongside pluto and ceres. I want Orcus, Quaoar, sedna and gonggong too.

I want people to have to learn that the world is bigger than we thought, and as our physical sciences progress we will continue to uncover more details in even the most seemingly mundane and established concepts. I want named planets that don't rely entirely on the Roman gods for their names.

I want people to have to accept that the world is bigger than they think it is, but also that it takes genuine advancements and work to uncover truths, and I want the idea we'd erase the fame of one of the nine first identified major celestial bodies to be cut off the list rather than expand it to be a humorless joke nobody would believe we even considered.

I want the people who keep harping on about Planet X to have less ammunition in the form of "they're hiding haumea from you!". I want science to be open and accessible.

Honestly I genuinely think that, alongside the vaccine panic, the pluto debacle was one of the biggest drivers of science scepticism in otherwise rational people. It's not helpful that the two happened so close to one another. Regardless of the scientific argument for it, the message communicated is "we're hiding things from you now".

“planet” is a social construct — as in, it’s constructed by society for purposes of communication. there’s no inherent “planetness” in the fabric of the universe. “Pluto is about 1.303e22 kg” is a statement of fact, but “Pluto is not a planet” is a statement about definitions.

really, when you say Pluto is (or isn’t) a planet, you’re saying “it’s (not) useful to group Pluto with other things we call planets for purposes of communication”. is it useful? probably not. using language accepted by the scientific community will probably better get your point across.

but one of the comments said something along the lines of “I can’t believe trans people don’t accept the scientific consensus on this”, and, like. yeah. can’t believe a group of people who are commonly forced by society into labels they don’t like would find joy in rejecting an imposed label. there’s no way people who are literally being harrassed by citing “dictionary definitions” would reject a dictionary definition. gee I wonder why that happens.

Woke: Pluto is a dwarf planet

People talk about Pluto and Eris all the time and sometimes bring up Ceres but I didn’t even know there were more than three in our system until I just looked up a list. Haumea and Makemake are equally as cool as the others and all of our dwarf planets should have a separate acronym because they Are different than the other planets but that doesn’t make them lesser (except for I guess literally because they’re smaller)

But also I agree Pluto wasn’t “demoted” to a dwarf planet it’s just Different not Worse.

Unwarranted Opinions on The Solar System

The Sun: solidly middle-of-the-road star. Only really impressive in conjunction with The Moon (see below), but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 5/10.

Mercury: A pretty uninspired start to the planets, all things considered. Venus does the whole "being hot and close to the sun" thing way better, so I don't really see the point. 0/10.

Venus: Hot, bright, instantly recognizable, and a fascinating counterpoint to Earth. 9/10 only because it doesn't have a nice big moon named Cupid or something - I feel like there was a missed opportunity there.

Earth: This might just be four billion years of evolution talking, but this planet is literally perfect. Dry land and oceans constantly changing shape and thus never getting stale; an atmosphere that filters out most dangerous radiation without being too hard to see through; a functioning magnetosphere; the list of its virtues goes on and on. And even if that somehow weren't enough, I've literally never seen another planet with life on it and that's enough to get Earth an automatic 10/10 for originality.

The Moon: THE best satellite in the entire Solar System and if you disagree we WILL fight. It's a beautiful color, its endless tiny details variably highlighted by its phases mean there's always something new to look at, and it's just the right size and distance from Earth to fully eclipse the Sun and leave only its corona and prominences exposed in the most spectacular display in space or anywhere. If you need me to explain why that makes it THE BEST I will be forced to assume you have no brain. Infinity/10, I am in love.

Mars: Basic details out of the way - I love the color and the extreme geography. Having the biggest mountain in the Solar System counts for something. Besides that, it's thematically fascinating, haunted by the ghosts of what would have been had it been able to hold on to its magnetosphere and atmosphere. I'd give it a perfect score but its dust storms have been unkind to the rovers and I neither forget nor forgive. 8/10.

Phobos & Deimos: stupid useless space potatoes. 1/10 only because Mars will have rings when Phobos finally bites it.

The Asteroid Belt: Meh. 0/10.

Ceres: It may be the only dwarf planet inside the orbit of Neptune, but it's still a dwarf planet. 2/10.

Trojans: Asteroid Belt but "artistic." 1/10.

Jupiter: impressive size, tasteful color palette, and the red spot gives it a bit of intrigue. Too many moons though. 7/10.

The Galilean Moons: fascinating orbital resonance. Shame Callisto won't get with the program. 7/10.

All of Jupiter's Other Moons: too many, and they keep finding new ones, none of which are spherical. Quantity isn't everything, guys. 3/10.

Saturn: the boring color palette is more than made up for, and the excessive number of moons justified, by those SPECTACULAR rings. No other planet has rings that beautiful. Why aren't more planets like this? 10/10.

Saturn's Moons: yeah, some of them have fun little gimmicks, but I really only like them inasmuch as they keep the rings in place. 5/10.

Uranus: the massive axial tilt is refreshingly original and the blue color is easy on the eyes. The lack of rings or memorable moons is a bit of a letdown. A lesser reviewer might make base puns but all the astronomers I know pronounce it differently and the jokes no longer land. 8/10.

Neptune: redundant. 2/10.

The Kuiper Belt: mysterious and full of comets. The Asteroid Belt could never. 6/10.

Pluto: I don't have anything against Pluto itself - the fact that it's so tiny and yet has (at least) five moons gives it a certain charm that a body like Mercury simply lacks. It's the fandom I can't stand. There are three criteria for a body to be classified as a planet, Pluto does not meet one of them, and the sentimental value you place on it and its mistaken former classification does not override this. Any appeal to the perceived injustice of Pluto's classification reveals a deep-seated hypocrisy - I don't see any of you going to bat for Eris. All that said, I will not let this nuisance compromise Pluto's rating. 9/10 for being a funny little guy.

Eris: fun fact, Eris is smaller in diameter but more massive than Pluto. Other than that, I'm not sure what it's got going for it. To be fair to Eris though, neither does anybody else. 5/10.

Haumea: It's an egg with two moons and a ring system. What more could you want? 8/10.

Other Dwarf Planets: Eh. 3/10 for mystery.

(ID of the above images: a number of tags of people getting mad at me for including pluto in a poll of non-planets)

So! It's been over 16 years!

admittedly, in my youth i was also a pluto truther

however, in my later youth i learned about ERIS! Eris is more massive than pluto! (but usually farther out and slightly smaller)

so the main reason that the iau (not nasa. idk why people would americanize this) held their meeting to change the definition of a planet in 2006 was because of the spate of Pluto-like minor planets discovered in the early 2000s, especially the more massive Eris.

and they decided that Pluto isn't a planet partly for the scientific reasons (that it's useful to differentiate between something like Neptune that dominates its orbital path and something like Pluto thats just kinda pushed around by Neptune) and partly bc the IAU ARE COWARDS who didnt want to elevate Eris to the status she deserves!