In ancient times, it was said that the naming of a person, place, or thing conferred an identity. Ancient times? We still do it. All the time. Whether we are naming a child, a pet, a vehicle, or a street, we are conferring an identity, or trying to. (And look at the entanglement some sports teams have gotten into because of an offensive or disrespectful name.) Companies spend tons of money to create a name of a product that sends a subliminal message as well as a liminal and supraliminal enticement to buy, acquire, or possess.
So, the inevitable question arises: why not simply rename the planet? Who says it has to be named Harm?
In other words, can we retrofit the identity-conferring naming process? Does it work inside out as well as outside in?
I say, it’s worth a try.
I expect risks and challenges. For one, reaching a consensus presents perhaps insurmountable challenges. Preceding consensus, how do Harmlings nominate new planet names? I can envision geographical districts voting upon alternatives, leading to a global referendum. But as I type these words, I am overwhelmed at how daunting this might be. Squabbles are bound to erupt over the renaming process, logistics, transparency, fairness, trust, objectivity, accuracy, et cetera ad finitum (infinitum is hyperbole). The whole enterprise seems like an invitation for adding layers of harm, new harm-laden permutations and configurations.
For all we know, this is precisely how we got into this mess (mess is judgmental; after all, how do we know whether Harm’s status quo is any or worse or better than that on Earth, the moon, Venus, Mars, Saturn, or Proxima Centauri (allegedly the closest star)?
But as I said, it’s worth a try. That’s the subterranean optimist in me talking. What have we got to lose? (See above for potential loss scenarios.)
Just for kicks and giggles, what would be your new-planet-moniker nomination? Remember, this venture just might work. As they say, be careful for what you ask for. If renaming were to yield reframing, what would you suggest?
Harder than you thought, right?
As an example, take “love,” a natural choice. Planet Love. Idyllic, eh? Hold on. You can see the dissent already: love in its multitude of manifestations or masquerades: familial, parental, paternal, maternal, fraternal, sororal, platonic, erotic, romantic, asexual, collegial, sacrificial, communal, eternal, self-directed, patriotic, divine, satanic, psychotic, monogamous, polyamorous love.
Who knew we’d be pining for good ol’ Harm?
And don't forget: what is the guarantee that a planetary name change will result in a game change? We can't say with certainty that customs, practices, and actions on Harm will actually change.
