Nature Needs New Pronouns

As both an environmentalist and writer, I'm intrigued by the ideas and proposal in this article. I support further discussion and consideration. 

Still, as both a regular style manual user and creator, I'm very aware of the lengthy and continuing discussions of the appropriate pronouns for referring to humans; specifically, referring generically to a single human as "they" or "their" -- instead of using "it," "its, "he" or "his," and "she" or "her." (I favor using "they" or "their" in the singular when a person's gender is unknown or not relevant.) So, I don't foresee a quick adoption/adaption of the suggestions in this article (or other suggestions with a similar goal.

Robin Wall Kimmerer writes in YES! Magazine​:

"In English, we never refer to a person as “it.” Such a grammatical error would be a profound act of disrespect. 'It' robs a person of selfhood and kinship, reducing a person to a thing.

"And yet in English, we speak of our beloved Grandmother Earth in exactly that way: as 'it.' The language allows no form of respect for the more-than-human beings with whom we share the Earth. In English, a being is either a human or an 'it.'

"Objectification of the natural world reinforces the notion that our species is somehow more deserving of the gifts of the world than the other 8.7 million species with whom we share the planet. Using 'it' absolves us of moral responsibility and opens the door to exploitation. When Sugar Maple is an 'it' we give ourselves permission to pick up the saw. 'It' means it doesn’t matter. ...

"Let me make here a modest proposal for the transformation of the English language, a kind of reverse linguistic imperialism, a shift in worldview through the humble work of the pronoun. Might the path to sustainability be marked by grammar?

"Language has always been changeable and adaptive. We lose words we don’t need anymore and invent the ones we need. We don’t need a worldview of Earth beings as objects anymore. That thinking has led us to the precipice of climate chaos and mass extinction.  ...

"We need a simple new English word to carry the meaning offered by the indigenous one. Inspired by the grammar of animacy and with full recognition of its Anishinaabe roots, might we hear the new pronoun at the end of Bemaadiziiaaki, nestled in the part of the word that means land?

"'Ki' to signify a being of the living Earth. Not 'he' or 'she,' but 'ki.' So that when we speak of Sugar Maple, we say, 'Oh that beautiful tree, ki is giving us sap again this spring.' And we’ll need a plural pronoun, too, for those Earth beings. Let’s make that new pronoun 'kin.' So we can now refer to birds and trees not as things, but as our earthly relatives. On a crisp October morning we can look up at the geese and say, 'Look, kin are flying south for the winter. Come back soon.'

"'Language can be a tool for cultural transformation. Make no mistake: 'Ki' and 'kin' are revolutionary pronouns. Words have power to shape our thoughts and our actions. On behalf of the living world, let us learn the grammar of animacy. We can keep 'it' to speak of bulldozers and paperclips, but every time we say 'ki,' let our words reaffirm our respect and kinship with the more-than-human world. Let us speak of the beings of Earth as the 'kin' they are."

Ediitorial comment: I like the suggestion for using "kin" as a plural of "ki" for referring generically to living "things" that aren't human. But "they" also works for all living "things." I am curious, though, about the possessive version of "ki" since the article doesn't mention one. I suppose it could be "kis" or "kir" -- one or the other, not both.