Nuclear Words

The words and connotations we are adopting can harm economic growth and people's well-being

Words are more dangerous than nuclear bombs. First, they incubate in a person's mind. Then, this person spreads it to new carriers. 

Some listen to the idea carrier and become prophets of the new word, while others imitate them to avoid looking racist, regressive, or bigoted. Eventually, society adopts a new word or the connotation of an existing word one.

The shift can accelerate economic growth, like when we started considering innovation as a good act. But it could also affect societies. I believe the words we are trying to force into our lexicon will harm societies’ quality of life and economic growth.

Society can change a word's connotation.

Before the Enlightenment, an era where religion lost power to science, people rarely thought about innovation because the word had a negative connotation. 16th and 17th-century thinkers like Montaigne, Bossuet, and Cromwell all criticized the act of innovating. "I am disgusted with innovation," says Montaigne, "in whatever guise, and with reason, for I have seen very harmful effects of it."

Citizens believed innovation was bad because theological governments told them so. It was a hoax to prevent people from trying to overthrow rulers. And it worked. Aristocrats and sheep washers feared innovation equally.

During the Enlightenment, people could finally question society's leaders and beliefs without being decapitated, crucified, or locked inside an iron coffin. Rejecting the status quo was the status quo. 

In his book The Beginning of Infinity, physicist David Deutsch explains that during the Enlightenment, "an entire political, moral, economic, and intellectual culture—roughly what is now called 'the West'—grew around the values entailed by the quest for good explanations, such as tolerance of dissent, openness to change, distrust of dogmatism and authority, and the aspiration to progress both by individuals and for the culture as a whole. And the progress made by that multifaceted culture, in turn, promoted those values."

These new values made people more likely to innovate. Before humans do or say something, they consider these acts' repercussions. Suppose you believe innovation is worth chasing, but no one else does. In that case, you are less likely to share an innovative idea out of fear of losing status, or your head, literally. 

Once impugning systems became a tradition, society considered people that called innovation a pagan act to have regressive beliefs. So unless you wanted to lose status, you had to back innovation's new connotation or remain silent about your opposition to it. 

Society can replace words with negative connotations.

Changing a word's meaning can help society grow. But cultures can also replace words with negative connotations with new ones. For example, policymakers are replacing the word "territorial ordering" with "territorial reorganization" in some Latin American countries like Colombia. The shift from one word to the other is increasing communities' likeliness to work alongside governments to take advantage of a territories' resources, even though both terms refer to the same activity.

Territorial ordering refers to using a territory's resources to create goods and services. The word implies a dictatorial relationship where one agent, usually the state, knows what's most beneficial for other agents. So, if a mining project seems profitable, governments will back it, even if tribes must move out of the place they have protected for generations. 

In contrast, territorial organization refers to a broader definition of the same process. The government plans how to use the territory's resources but first analyzes the area's economic activity, specific needs, and habitat. If they discover the project can affect communities, they don't start it. Substituting "territorial ordering" with a word that has a broader definition of the same phenomena, policymakers have earned communities' trust.

The spread of the word "territorial organization" can lead to more efficient collaborations between the state and communities, economic growth, and innovation in the following decades. If governments are unlikely to crush your home with a boulder while mining, you are less likely to oppose their projects. 

The impacts of mindlessly promoting new words or connotations

Just as people can mimic other people's attitudes towards a word and improve society, they can support a new word or connotation and stagnate society's growth. A word can change its meaning and connotation to serve political or business agendas, partly because we hand-picked which values from the Enlightenment to follow. 

We are open to change only if people back our version of the future. The idea of tolerating dissent fascinates us, but only if we are pushing an opinion. Likewise, we support the need to distrust dogmas and authority, but only if we are the ones doing it, regardless of the scientific rigor of our arguments.

Inclusive pronouns are a set of words gaining support in the United States. Supporters of this movement claim pronoun usage is necessary to help gender minorities feel included, implying society has always segregated gender minorities. And that this group won't feel accepted unless one talks to them using pronouns.

In these discussions, whether true or not, people fail to address the underlying issue: only a small percentage of the population is following an ideology. And the rest accept it because they don't want to be labeled as bigots. This reality is a problem, as the proliferation of an idea by a minority eventually permeates the rest of society. 

"Society doesn't evolve [or devolve] by consensus, voting, majority, committees, verbose meetings, academic conferences, tea, and cucumber sandwiches, or polling," says statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb, "Only a few people suffice to disproportionately move the needle. All one needs is an asymmetric rule somewhere—and someone with soul in the game."

If people are unwilling to challenge beliefs held by a small portion of society, potentially harmful ideas will spread.

Let's play a scenario in which gender pronouns become the norm. One where rejectors never share alternative methods of spreading these words nor hypothesize about the potential consequences on society that forced adoption of these phrases could have. 

For instance, say radical advocates of gender pronouns keep forcing people to use these words by humiliating those who don't. Then, people won't come up with counterarguments to the supporters' arguments. And since no one is saying anything, rejecting these phrases would seem regressive. 

In this scenario, via a series of events where rejectors of the movement will probably end up unemployed, gender pronouns will become the norm in America. Gender minorities will feel accepted. 

But what happens next? While everyone in the world finds out about the latest US ideologies, they don't blindly accept them. If every US citizen must use gender pronouns by 2050, what will happen when they travel to other countries and sees no one is using progressive phrases?

Will they tolerate dissent like citizens from the Enlightenment age, or will they react violently? Given the high number of physical and virtual attacks on public US criticizers of gender pronouns, the answer will likely be violence. It is more painless to harm strangers than your kin. 

Will the US impose "progressive" ideals on other countries? A person conceited by the self-declared grandiosity of their beliefs could think that transgression is necessary to ensure long-term peace. But if they use violence, wouldn't this go against the free speech and tolerance principles that gender pronouns backers are using to justify their existence? 

In this scenario, which is not far-fetched, the proliferation of a set of words would lead to ideological battles in which developing economies would likely suffer the most via violence, political plays, and economic sanctions. And that's if we are talking about nation-level agents. 

US citizens who oppose these words would likely be the ones to suffer the most cancellation and humiliation consequences of challenging these ideas. They are already suffering.

Radicalized takes on diversity, equity, and inclusion also promote the redefinition of existing words, like "free speech." It's no longer about the freedom to say something. But about the capacity to say anything as long as it doesn't offend anyone. Freedom to criticize is the essence of our last centuries' growth in the economic, ethical, and well-being sphere. If free speech becomes taboo, sharing innovative ideas would become a pagan act, like before the Enlightenment.

No new word or connotation should spread senselessly, even those you support. Today, there's one backer; tomorrow, the entire society.