2

We can talk about different animals, plants, groups of people, and belief systems "coexisting," by which we mean not just

To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place. [definition 1 from TFD]

but

To live in peace with another or others despite differences [definition 2 from TFD]

Would it be incorrect or confusing to combine these senses and lump living and non-living things together, like this:

We need to create sustainable cities where people, animals, plants and resources can coexist.

Does "resources" not belong?

Improve this question
8
  • 1
    ‘Confusing’ may be a bit strong, but it certainly reads as rather awkward and not very natural to me.
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:13
  • 2
    I don't think of myself as coexisting with the tar sands.
    – TimR
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:20
  • @Tromnano: precisely, and neither do I! And the usage of the word with the first sense, simply meaning "existing at the same time," without any connotation of connection or living peaceably, seems strange. Perhaps because if there's no connection, why even mention it?
    – Rusty Tuba
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:22
  • 2
    There are about 1,520 results in Google Books for [liquid, etc.] and gas coexist. I see nothing wrong with saying "abstract" states of matter and other "inanimate" things exist or coexist. But OP's usage is something of a zeugma, in that the different referent nouns don't really "[co-]exist" in the same sense.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:32
  • 1
    It would have been better to say something like "We need to create cities where people, animals, and plants can coexist and share resources in a sustainable way." Resource sharing is part of the equation for coexistence among the living things—but the resources are not, as it were, their own interest group.
    – Sven Yargs
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 9:34

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Resources can coexist with other things, so it's correct in that regard.

People, animals and plants are the same class of thing in a way resources are not, which makes putting all four nouns on the same level read awkwardly.

People, animals and plants each cannot not coexist with resources, as they each need resources to survive, which makes the statement pointless. (You may be thinking of different types of resources in the statement, but it isn't clear).

So while it's not wrong, it's not good either.

Improve this answer
1
  • Yes, it's not my sentence, but I believe the writer was thinking of "resources" as in "natural resources," including oil, water, etc. I thought it was an ineffective statement because it attempts to suggest "wise use of natural resources" and "respect for biodiversity" by throwing them all together and saying we need to "coexist."
    – Rusty Tuba
    Commented Dec 31, 2014 at 13:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .