Would it be correct to say we reside within Earth?

Author: Reece101 ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 29
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    As the atmosphere is part of Earth.

    When people write/type humans live on earth, it should be lower case like such.

  • oromagi
    oromagi avatar
    Debates: 99
    Forum posts: 4,576
    7
    9
    11
    oromagi avatar
    oromagi
    Would it be correct to say we reside within Earth?
    No.  English grammar is a hopeless muddle so my advice to fellow writers is screw the style manual and write for clarity.  If you were to refer to "all the people within the Earth" people would wonder whether you only meant people below the surface.  I think I accept that the atmosphere is part of Earth, although we'd still call it Earth without the atmosphere. 
    • Consider if Capt. Picard was analyzing a piece of sandstone he might say "this was once part of Earth!" but
    • If Capt. Picard was analyzing an air sample he would not likely say, "this was once part of Earth!"  he would more likely say "this was once part of Earth's atmosphere!"
    Let's recall that the usage predates our understanding of atmosphere and comes from a very homocentric perspective- we are on the surface; all that is below is Earth; all that is above is not Earth- sky, heaven, etc.

    Consider also that there are planets with no atmosphere in which a human might reside- Mercury for example. 

    "Capt. Picard!  I've detected life signs on Mercury and within Earth!"
    "What do you mean, ensign? Are the Terran life signs in a cave or something?"
    "No, sir.  They are just in Earth's atmosphere!"
    ".....uh, flying.... or something, do you mean....?"
    "No, sir.  They are on Earth's surface but nevertheless within Earth's atmosphere!"
    "Thank you ensign, please report to sick bay."


  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @oromagi
    So basically it wouldn’t be correct because most people are ignorant? 
  • Discipulus_Didicit
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 4,154
    3
    4
    10
    Discipulus_Didicit avatar
    Discipulus_Didicit
    --> @Reece101
    So basically it wouldn’t be correct because most people are ignorant? 

    Not exactly. Consider the fact that the word earth is often used as a synonym for the word dirt. 
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Discipulus_Didicit
    Hence why I distinguished between earth (dirt) and Earth (Planet).
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 60
    Forum posts: 1,872
    4
    7
    11
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    If planet earth, yes. 
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @Intelligence_06
    There are nouns and then there are proper nouns.
    Nouns refer to common entities that can vary such as “earth“ (Earth’s dirt). They start with lower case letters.
    proper nouns refer to unique entities such as “Earth” (planet). They start with higher case letters.

    I noticed I capitalised planet in my previous post. My bad.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    It would be correct to say that we reside within the Earth's atmosphere.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    But also the Earth? As the atmosphere is part of it.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    Convention and Oxford Dictionaries, would  appear to differentiate between Earth and atmosphere....On rather than within.

    I think that convention has it,  irrespective of what one might consider to be literally correct.

  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    I thought the convention would be atmospheres are part of planets just as organs are part of humans. Does the Oxford Dictionary also differentiate between eye and human? Or am I thinking too hard?

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    The Earth and ourselves are within the Earth's atmosphere. 

    Does the integrity of all planetary spheres rely upon an atmosphere?

    And I assume that the dictionary would definitely differentiate between the human and the human eye. I think also, that the dictionary would differentiate between the human being and the human body.

    Such thoughts aren't hard though.


  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    Do all humans rely on hair? Look, it’s not the most solid analogy, but it still holds. 
    It’s good I’m simplifying it for you.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    Do all humans rely on hair.
    No.

    Hair is an Interesting social issue though.

    Nonetheless:
    Life relies on an atmosphere, but does the Earth rely on an atmosphere?

    So I fully accept your proposition. In so much as from a residents perspective we are wholly reliant on Planet Earth having an integral atmosphere.

    Challenging language conventions thus, is probably not worth the effort though.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    Life relies on an atmosphere, but does the Earth rely on an atmosphere?
    Earth produces an atmosphere just as humans produce hair.
    Would you consider Earth’s life to be called earthlings/gaians/terrans?
    If so, that’s because you consider Life to be a product of the planet.
    Just as the atmosphere is. 

    Challenging language conventions thus, is probably not worth the effort though
    You chose to answer the question on the science page, not the conventional linguistics page.  

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    Ok. But your opening question did ask was it "correct to say". 

    The nature of the Earth and it's atmosphere and their associated life bearing qualities is quite well understood, and so the question did not require scientific scrutiny. The resolution of the question,  only really required semantic scrutiny.

    Maybe it was you, that located a question in the wrong category.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    So scientifically you agree, linguistically you disagree?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    Yep. I can run with that.

    In so much as, you questioned things in relation to our residence, and the Earths atmosphere is essential in that respect. Though linguistically we define Earth and Earth's atmosphere separately.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @zedvictor4
    Kinda like how we define the universe and the things in it differently although they’re one in the same.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 3,945
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Reece101
    Exactly.
  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    --> @Reece101
    You get on or in a bus, boat, train, plane, but only in a car. If you get on a car, then you are on top of it. Similarly, I would not say that I am "on Earth" when I reach the outer reaches of the atmosphere. Once I had landed, I would be "on" Earth. I don't see any evidence for your first post, that the atmosphere is part of Earth. It's Earth's atmosphere in the same way that my pencil is my pencil. It's a possession that I have, not part of me.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @K_Michael
    It’s chemically connected to Earth and its flora and fauna. 
  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    --> @Reece101
    Connected is different than a part of.
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 531
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    --> @K_Michael
    I’m happy to use them interchangeably. Do you have an actual argument?

  • K_Michael
    K_Michael avatar
    Debates: 25
    Forum posts: 267
    0
    4
    9
    K_Michael avatar
    K_Michael
    --> @Reece101
    A trailer is connected to a truck, but not a part of it. I think there is a distinction. I am also "chemically connected to Earth and its flora and fauna," but I do not consider myself part of the planet.