... whose most defining feature is water?
Liquid water and the water-associated biological systems are really what make Earth notable as a planet.
Now, "earth" does have symbolic meaning to human kind (soil being symbolic as the beginning and end of life). Yet, in light of modern knowledge it seems like a major FAIL that we named our planet after its most mundane feature. Earth can be found on any planet with a surface (all planets?), as well as most all asteroids. For the sake of the argument I won't mention all the cosmic dust and other "sub planet" matter.
Why not name this planet "Water"?
Why not name this planet "Gaia?"
Why not "Bluebert?" Bluebert may sound silly, but it's much more appropriate a name than "Earth."
EDIT: Sorry to see this board has become a bit dead. OT always had its "warts," but was still a great internet community.
Log in to comment