• Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    You know, this post made me realize something. Some people are viewing it in terms of “rank”, instead of an arbitrary scientific classification designed to efficiently communicate ideas in a clear and concise way.

    It’s like … mythology or something, and the planet(oid) being anthropomorphized.

    Do people also view kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species as “ranks” of some sort, with some intrinsically greater value being given to some over others?

    • Squorlple@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s like … mythology or something, and the planet(oid) being anthropomorphized.

      I mean, the planet(oid)s are named after gods.

      The personification of its classification is probably related to the exclusivity of the title and “bigger is better” mentality. Since every life form has a taxonomy for domain to species, there’s not really an exclusivity to each echelon. I don’t imagine anybody really thinks like this meme below, for example:

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        This makes me want to devise a tiered, inclusive classification scheme for space objects.

        We could start with orbital objects, any object that normally experiences regular, periodic orbits with minimal deviation. So, everything in the galaxy would be one except potentially Sag A, and the galaxy itself. Perhaps the next branching subsets could be things undergoing continuous fusion somewhere in their body or not?

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Do people also view kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species as “ranks” of some sort, with some intrinsically greater value being given to some over others?

      Well, for humans we most certainly do

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        So, “homo” is better than “sapiens”? And “animal” is better than homo sapiens?

        Or do I have it backwards, and “lower” ranks are better? So, “pinus ponderosa” would be better than “plant”?

    • shneancy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it’ll matter a bit more once (if) we get to explore our solar system for real. I feel like right now the concept of “planet” is still rather distant in our minds and a lot of people just base it on vibes

    • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Thing is everyone has one of those.

      Compare it to non-sentience, sentience, and sapience, to properly anthropomorphize it.

        • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah but no one just has a kingdom or phylum.

          Every living creature gets an entry from domain to species.

          Celestial bodies aren’t a hierarchy, a planet isn’t also a dwarf planet or an asteroid.

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Hard not to anthropomorphize things when they’re named after our gods