Viewing Pluto-Charon as a prototype binary planet system makes a lot of sense. Why hasn't the IAU considered this? Maybe it's because the IAU planet definition makes no allowance for a binary system. The two planets in a binary by definition haven't "cleared their orbits" of one another. The argument that those of us who continue to view Pluto as a planet do so out of emotion or resistance to change is a straw man argument. Support for dwarf planets being a subclass of planets comes from preference for the geophysical planet definition, in which a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star. Dwarf planets are simply small planets not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. That was the intent of Dr. Alan Stern when he first coined the term "dwarf planet," a term the IAU distorted from its original meaning. Significantly, in astronomy, dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. There is no scientific basis for the argument that Pluto cannot be counted as a planet because that will require many more objects to be also counted as planets. So what? How is there any scientific merit to artificially keeping the number of planets small? No one has a problem with billions of stars or billions of galaxies. No one argues that Jupiter can have only four moons because no one can remember the names of 67. Memorizing is not important for learning. We don't ask kids to memorize the names of all the rivers or mountains on Earth; we ask them to understand what a river and a mountain are. Similarly, we can teach kids the characteristics of each type of planet--terrestrial, gas giant, dwarf planet, etc. Ironically, the demotion of Ceres stands as evidence of a premature erroneous decision, not as a legitimate support for the demotion of Pluto. Ceres was wrongly demoted because 19th century astronomers' telescopes were not powerful enough to resolve it into a disk. Therefore, they couldn't tell that unlike every other object in the asteroid belt (except Vesta and Pallas, which are borderline cases), Ceres is spherical and therefore a small planet with geology and layering. Today, we know the Ceres is spherical and a complex object much more like the larger planets than like any asteroid. The same is true for Pluto. Referring to Pluto as "debris" makes absolutely no sense, as it blurs the important distinction between a complex world layered into core, mantle and crust, with an atmosphere and active geology, and a tiny, shapeless asteroid. Also, it is a misnomer to refer to Pluto as an "iceball," as it is estimated to be 70 percent rock. Pluto is not a comet and will never become a comet. No comet is this rocky or anywhere near Pluto's size. Comets lose mass with every orbit that brings them into the inner solar system. Pluto does not experience any mass loss at perihelion, and it never comes anywhere near the inner solar system. As for the discoverer of Eris, he was for Pluto and Eris being classed as planets before he was against it. His motivation in changing his mind is hardly selfless, as he has sought celebrity status through billing himself as the "plutokiller," getting paid to give talks and promote his book, which is more memoir than science. Interestingly, he was one of three co-discoverers of Eris. One of the co-discoverers, Dr. David Rabinowitz, signed a petition of 300 professional astronomers rejecting the IAU decision. S there is no consensus on the status of these objects even among the discoverer of the one closest in size to Pluto.