SPACE CASE


So Pluto is no longer a planet. Almost two months ago, the International Astronomical Union voted to define what constitutes a planet, booting Pluto in the process. At first I was a little incensed, as are many of my friends. After thinking about it, I think I have changed my mind. Not that I am necessarily in favor of the change, but it doesn't really bother me anymore.

My usual thought process invariably is steeped in relativity. And this case for or against Pluto is no exception. To hear most people talk, they would almost seem to imply the small orb as having actually changed because it is no longer a planet. Of course, Pluto sails on its merry way, oblivious to the "re-districting" that we are imagining down here. It seems interesting to me that all the hub-bub about the change seems to deal with very little with the actual planet itself.

Fueling the outcry against the change is a lot of strong emotion and sentimentality towards this little rock. Most of the outcry comes from Americans, and this is easy to understand as we will always root for the underdog. Of course, we have had nine planets for years and years (well, not that many years. Pluto was only discovered in 1930) and many prefer the status quo. Nine planets were the what they grew up with. Why toss out a part of their childhood? Emotions are an important part the human experience, but I have a tough time following the argument that is only grounded in emotion. Especially when it tries to work its way into the scientific discussion.

On the other hand, science is not the necessarily better alternative either. Remember that the debate is not actually about the planet, but rather about how we choose to define the planet. Astronomers are looking at size, shape, proximity and orbit when they are trying to build their definitions. While this seems fair and objective, remember too that these men and women are basing their criteria for the definition of what the planet is based on their best judgments. This means of course, that they are choosing the criteria based on what seems and feels right. There are no right and wrong answers about what makes a planet, astronomers are just choosing one criteria over another. Whether you want to accept their definitions are up to you, I suppose.

Personally, I don't mind the change. I look forward to the opportunity to tell my kids that I grew up in a solar system that had nine planets. Like I'm some kind of alien. Pluto can be king of the dwarf planets, the largest of other big rocks like Ceres, Sedna, Eris, Orcus, and Quaoar, to name a few. And who knows what changes will be made. Another big old rock could be found and the astronomers will have to rethink the whole mess again. Maybe that's the lesson we should pick up from this. Things are changing all the time. What is solid fact one day is out-dated knowledge the next. Remember that Moses lived in a solar system with six planets.

For more news on the brouhaha, click here.




Oh, a post-script:
Hey IAU, the next time you folks want to change the nature of the cosmos, maybe you could come up with a better name for Uranus. That's got to go.