Philanthropists are fine, I guess, if that’s the way you roll. But what we really need is more people leveraging their fortunes for the betterment of the non-human natural world. Needing a word to describe that activity, I suggest: philanimalism. (Sadly, I am merely a co-discoverer here. The word appears in Anthony Trollope’s 1877 book The American Senator.)

All aboard the non sequitur bus!

In Year 1 that useless letter “c” would be dropped to be replased by either “k” or “s,” and likewise “x” would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which “c” would be retained would be the “ch” formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might well reform “w” spelling, so that “which” and “one” would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish “y” replasing it with “i,” and Iear 4 might fiks the “g-j” anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear, with Iear 5 doing awai with useles double konsonants, and iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Ier 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov the ridandant letez “c,” “y,” amd “x” — bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez — tu riplais “ch,” “sh,” and “th” rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xreawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld. Haweve, sins xe Wely, the Airiy, and xe Skots du not spik Ingliy, xei wud hev to hev a speling siutd tu xer oun lengwij. Xei kud, haweve, orlweiz lern Ingliy as a sekond lengwik et skuul.

Iorz feixfuli,
M.J. Yilz

Shields MJ (1980) “Iorz Feixfuli”, reprinted in Espy WR (1980) Another Almanac of Words at Play. Clarkson N. Potter, Inc., New York, p. 80.

Some recent positive economic news is being met with some skepticism, especially along the lines that mere decreases in revenue loss or job loss do not constitute bona-fide gains. Seems obvious, but somehow the same thinking does not seem to be occurring with respect to sustainability, where new products, transitions to solar and wind power, and decreased automotive emissions are perceived as “earth friendly” or “good for the environment.” Nonsense. Less bad may be better, but it ain’t good. Recycling just means less waste, not zero waste. Solar power still requires someone to manufacture the panels. Hybrids still burn gas, and they still wear tires, and “earth friendly” products still require manufacturing facilities, transportation, packaging. No way is the entire lifecycle of every one of those dependencies earth friendly. Not even close.

Granted, from a total impact standpoint, most forms of alternative energy are overall better than fossil fuels, and the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that completely eliminating “waste” is impossible. Still, it’d be nice to see fewer people dislocating their shoulders in self-congratulation over how green this guilt-free facade on consumerism is.

Why are some people (like many American men) obsessed with gadgets? Perhaps because tools connote ability, and ability connotes status. This goes way, way back. Tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Your value to society is measured by your ability to get things done. Your are what you can do. It’s the mandate of the hunter and the executive. Into this equation, add a term for peacock feathers (ostentatious expense as a signal of abundant personal resources) and I think you can explain our obsession with things ranging from filigreed armor to Leathermen and gold Rolexes.