A while back in 2006, the International Astronomical Union reclassified Pluto as a dwarf planet. However, reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet has caused disagreements on whether it’s a dwarf or a planet.

I vastly disagree with reclassifying Pluto as a dwarf planet. One reason is the definition is a little rough around the edges. The three criteria were: No. 1, a planet must orbit the sun; No. 2, a planet's gravity must be massive enough to form it into the shape of a ball; but No. 3 is a bit unclear. It is that a planet must clear it’s orbital neighborhood. How big is this neighborhood — 8,000 yards, 3,000,000,000 meters, 986,000,000 miles?

Another thing is Pluto is technically in Neptune’s orbit. No one has seemed to question if Neptune is a real planet. In conclusion, Pluto should be a planet for various reasons, such as the voter count, definition and history. One thing, however, is very clear:

Change is usually awesome. But in some cases like this, change is very questionable.

Garrett Willingham


Sign up for our Daily Headlines newsletter

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.