The focus of this essay is on the relation of language to reality. To reflect on this relation is to enter, from my perspective, into a worldview where what we think of as reality as composed of and constituted by human practices that produce and are shaped by conventions. What I seek to expose are the bad habits of organizing reality in binaries, and then correct these habits by moving to the way of seeing that shows humans to be composed of microbiomes that are not uniquely human at all, and of language and social practices that flow through them. Solidity is questioned, as is the very idea of individuality as anything more than, or ontologically prior to, an array of memberships and practices. The abolitionist response to climate change is twofold, I argue. First, it attacks the alienation from the biosphere engendered by ontological dualisms. Second, on a rhetorical plane, abolitionism conceives of an ecologically healthy future in terms of enhanced freedom, in contrast to the language of sustainability. Freedom and sustainability are not opposed necessarily. Freedom (as marronage or emancipation), however, in spite of distortions and ambiguities, is more effective (i.e., positive) for organizing and evincing desirable political goals. The problem of sustainability is that it does not usually entail radical change. We pursue a sustainable path, for instance, and never stop to ask what should not be sustained (i.e., racism, misogyny, consumerism).