New words needed

Hi Oakleighvermont

I was impressed by your original comment - but I sincerely believed that it was intended for another page altogether. Until now, you made absoluely no obvious reference to anything previously said in this conversation!.

I believe you are making an important distinction between people talking about "saving the planet'' when what we should be saying is ''saving ourselves''. Is this what you mean? This is not a new idea to me and I stand corrected for my sloppy reference to ''ravaging the planet's health''. I like the attitude that environmental concern

posted by davegurr on 9/14/2007 4:42 pm

Hi Davegurr,

Posting to the "wrong discussion"? On the contrary Dave! Context is everything. My point was that if our language is based on erroneous beliefs that humans are "ravaging our planet's health", instead of ravaging our health, then new linguistics will ultimately have less power and authenticity than "eco-friendliness". The context of environmental disaster is not that the Earth is hurting, but that it is altering a system that hurts life! Even if our new words "smack of moral superiority", at least they will grounded in the reality of sound science, not careless semantics. The Eath is not sick or ravaged! If you were here 3 billion years ago, you would have encountered pure hell! Think of present-day Earth as a finely-tuned life suport system for all living things...

Therefore if you want words that would replace eco-friendliness, that engender perpetual life harmony, health, stewardship, and common good, start with roots in those concepts or words, instead of roots or concepts embedded in "ravaging Earth". Even "Perpetual Life Harmony" PLH or Perpetual Earth Stewardship" (PES), would be two admittedly humble brainstorming suggestions to start! Some others: E-Care, E-Love and E-harmony (hey, wait a minute!)

posted by Oakleighvermont on 9/10/2007 9:38 am

Firstly, how do I tell the previous commentator (below) that he? has posted into the wrong discussion?

Secondly, thank you very much Earon for your illuminating reply (2nd below) which placed my grumble about english within a linguistic context. i have found very interesting to follow up George Lakoff. Yes, and thank you for recommendinding mindful, conscious and compassionate. These words probably deserve inclusion in any worthwhile debate. I only regret that they might smack of moral superiority within the context of the pop song i am writing about the joy of cycle transportation!

My apologies for such a slow response to your post. After I initially posted my 'words needed' request, I frequently scanned the page for responses. Then I gave up for ages. I guess that must be the way these forums work- people have to expect that their posts may remain unreplied to for a long time? thanks again. dave

posted by davegurr on 9/ 7/2007 5:56 pm

I agree wholeheartedly!

We need to first understand that the Earth itself has been a place full of deadly hydrogen sulfide gas, without oxygen, nuclear winter from volcanoes and metors, with extreme climate conditions that would not permit most live forms today to survive. The Earth itself will do fine over the coming 5 billion years, until the sun swallows it up in the red giant phase. Earth will survive as a rock, with pools of chemicals such as water solutions, a relatively thin membrane of shifting gases that will slowly change composition and position... Humans will continue to move fossil fuels, radioactive rocks, elements and compounds out of the crust and deposit them eventually in other parts of the crust. This will have minimal impact on the planet itself. The impact will be on humans and other life forms who have evolved to thrive only under certain conditions.

We are simply naturally-selected for the Earth's present climate. When we look at our environmental disasters, they are only disasters to us because our living conditions are optimal within a narrow range of parameters. The planet's health is not ravaged so much as humanity's health is being ravaged as we impact the spaceship earth, the bubble pod on which we live. A better word for eco-friendliness will take into account the context, which is survival and health of humans and other life forms in an increasingly poisonous (to today's life forms) spaceship. The word may draw upon native traditions of stewardship and harmony.

posted by Oakleighvermont on 9/ 5/2007 10:11 am

Hello, Dave. I have found that words such as "mindful, " "conscious" and "compassionate" work pretty well. The hyphenated words you seek to replace are, indeed, awkward - but chosing the right words is also part of mindful writing practice. On many occasions, I have found that my search for a very precise word was futile, but that there were more general words already out there that worked even better because they connected to other similar concepts to which people could better relate.

One challenge I recently faced was in trying to find a word to express the opposite of "anthropomorphism," the attribution of human traits to non-human beings. What would we call the refusal to see human traits that exist in non-human beings? I sought this word simply to point out that anthropomorphism was a dominant concern for many, but without an offsetting counter-concern. What I eventually found was a word coined by anthropologist, Frans De Waal -- "anthropodenial." And yet it isn't in wide use and you'd nonetheless probably have to provide the full definition every time you used it.

Linguistics is a fascinating, potentially powerful field, often used for spin-doctoring, so thanks for bringing up this topic. I recommend the writings of George Lakoff, who brings linguistic awareness to the political and social philosophical world.

Earon

posted by Earon on 8/25/2007 1:30 pm

You must be a registered user to comment. If you are already registered Click here to login or Click here for our fast, free registration.