The point remains the same, the people don't want it there, make it somewhere else.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jason Momoa says he can’t shoot Aquaman 2 due to protesting (construction of a giant telescope on sacred Hawaiian land)
- Thread starter Arthands
- Start date
No the point does not remain the same. Location matters. The telescope wouldn't be as effective in another location.
That the optimal location for the telescope is on Mauna Kea doesn't change anything about how it's not justified to impose construction on a landmark crucial to a native culture.
The location matters for the telescope but doesn't matter for the political and ethical ramifications of this act.
For whom exactly? Because this is happening.
First of all, you're quantifiably wrong because the majority of people DO want it there.
Second, when you're talking about a scientific leap forward in our understanding of the known universe, "tough shit" is a pretty ignorant mindset. I understand the argument against it, but some of you are acting like they're building a fucking Walmart.
Last edited:
I would actually find it so incredibly awesome if my sacred ground was found to be one of the best places in the whole world to look at the universe. It would make it even more special.
I understand the impulse to defend "the greater good" but that's a slippery slope to devaluing sites of natural or cultural significant at large. I think this case is a bit more complicated than it seems at first.
Humanities "helps" with communication because articulating nuanced arguments is the fundamental work of humanities scholars. Studying the humanities necessarily entails honing those skills. That should be pretty obvious.
I agree, but that is not sufficient reason for disregarding the will of the Native Hawaiians who are against the TMT.
This thread has been an interesting read that got me thinking some questions I haven't mused on before:
What is the minimum number of people needed to block something that will benefit not only every human alive, but every human still yet to be born, I wonder?
Do similar sacred/historic/cultural concerns of peoples apply beyond landmarks? Like if a people placed sacred value on the night sky, should they be able to block the construction of a space station that would be a visible heavenly body? What if your religion placed an importance on plagues, could you block the development of a vaccine (I suppose there are religious exemptions for vaccines so maybe)?
What about in reverse, a destruction versus preservation thing? Instead of blocking a telescope that's good globally to preserve the local landmark, what if the locals wanted to deforest a large rainforest which would be bad globally?
What is the minimum number of people needed to block something that will benefit not only every human alive, but every human still yet to be born, I wonder?
Do similar sacred/historic/cultural concerns of peoples apply beyond landmarks? Like if a people placed sacred value on the night sky, should they be able to block the construction of a space station that would be a visible heavenly body? What if your religion placed an importance on plagues, could you block the development of a vaccine (I suppose there are religious exemptions for vaccines so maybe)?
What about in reverse, a destruction versus preservation thing? Instead of blocking a telescope that's good globally to preserve the local landmark, what if the locals wanted to deforest a large rainforest which would be bad globally?
Every human alive and every human yet to be born? Current Astronomy knowledge doesn't do that, so what's with the claim this telescope will be the thing that changes that?
Cultural does not inherently mean Religion.
The destruction question is false equivalency.
Finally, there are other sites that the telescope can be placed.
I'm still waiting for the supporters of pushing it through to cite the difference in efficacy between it being placed here versus the Canary Islands or one of the other locations. Are we talking a 50 percent reduction? 20? 5? .00001 percent?
^
This is all I got from this thread.
We in the public will probably never get that level of granularity, but this is what they've said previously:
The researchers discuss the fact that the Mauna Kea location is strongly preferred scientifically to La Palma, but that La Palma could be a valid choice to minimize delay and be one of the first to turn eyes to the sky.
They detailed the benefits and challenges of the telescope's current location, and compared them with the pros and cons of building the telescope on La Palma, or at the two locations in Chile where the other two upcoming mega-telescopes are being constructed. They found that the climate and lower altitude at La Palma would require more adaptive optics — essentially more work done at the telescope mirror and instrumentation level to correct for interference from Earth's atmosphere.
"The main drawbacks of ORM are that it is warm and relatively wet, which makes [mid-infrared] observations all but impossible," Michael Balogh, chairman of the CASCA/ACURA TMT Advisory Committee that authored the report, told Motherboard. "That means it takes longer to achieve the same science compared with [Mauna Kea] or Chile. But for the most part, the same science is still achievable."
Source: https://www.space.com/37067-canadian-astronomers-consider-megatelescope-move.html
So either way;
1. The clear majority of natives want it there and,
2. It's the best location for it
Why the fuck are we arguing?
There are alternate locations that aren't sacred ground and won't have anybody protesting. A lot of people don't want it there. It is completely disrespectful to ignore that and the cultural significance of the site.
Last edited:
All "there are a dozen up there already" tells me is these people were ignored a dozen times before. It shouldn't matter if a lot more people want it there than not, especially when we're talking about a country where there's maybe half a million native Hawaiians (350'000 of which are mixed heritage) left out of a population three times that.
You can't just set up shop in someone else's home, ignore their history and beliefs and do whatever the heck you want with their land. If this wasn't an issue for them, they wouldn't be against it. That needs to be respected.
Literal whataboutism reaching critical levels in this post.
The benefits will still come from this telescope in a different location. So you can hold off on all the sanctimonious pleading for humanity extant and yet to come.
All of your musings are reductive and not analogous to this situation. I mean, "What if aliens came to earth and started building alien shit everywhere. And that was like part of their alien religion. Should we let aliens build alien shit?" It's silly. Stop it.
Should the 13 other observatories on Kea be deconstructed as well?
One of the best sites for astronomical observation in the world shouldn't be considered off limits because of religious beliefs. If there was a specific area of land that held some significance, a burial ground or something of the like, I'd agree with the protestors, but not the entire mountain.
Actually, it's not clear. The recent poll I posted said that the majority of the natives don't want it. I think there needs to be more data collected before we say either way.
And it's you, Zornack, who get's to decide what holds significance and not native Hawaiians, correct?
The fact is, it can build it elsewhere.
The other observatories already exist. The discussion isn't about them.
Thank you for this. So not an ideal solution but one where they can still accomplish the same thing but with a delay?
We are arguing because that's possibly as much as 2/5 native Hawaiians not wanting it based off of a survey with a very high margin of error and a methodology that reduces the number of possible responses from the demographic most opposed. The most recent survey was based on registered voters. I should have used the primary data because I new 100,000 was too low for unregistered voters. It's actually 400,000+ for the state.
Because the survey was conducted in early 2018 we can look at census data for the 2016 election. Native Hawaiians are grouped under Asian or Pacific Islands and Asian alone or in combination. For these groups respectively, you're looking at 49.3 and 51.2 percent that are registered to vote. They obviously don't make up all of those as you have Japanese, Filipino and other Asian peoples amongst the population. Let's say native Hawaiians are at the average though. You're then looking at a survey where half of the population would have been eligible as respondents, and amongst that half you have a sample with a margin of error that gives you anywhere from 61 to 83 percent support for the telescope. The previous survey didn't limit responses to registered voters and was split 46/45 support/opposition.
I don't see how people are talking about the importance of science if they are willing to ignore these limitations in sampling and methodology to say that they are overwhelmingly in favor when at least half of them wouldn't even have been contacted. Hell 23 percent of the respondents to the 2016 survey were not registered voters.
TMT is an international project. I know it's easy to make the white settler/colonialism jump when it comes to building on native lands, but that's actually not the case here.
But it's so easy to take the moral highground if we just scream about white people.
And any observatories in the future? Should one of the best areas in the world for astronomy be without any telescopic advancements because of religious beliefs?
Why can't they compromise and replace/upgrade 1 or two of those old shitty telescopes as to not disturb additional sacred land or is a dozen telescopes not enough for 1 mountain?
Don't you see the irony of people in far off lands deciding whats best for an indigenous people?
This is pure obfuscation.
You can slice it 6 ways from Sunday, and the very worst case scenario is still that the majority are in support.
I'm not talking about this specific telescope, exactly. My thoughts on this specifically are more or less: sure, the project appears to have been approved democratically, but protests are a part of democracy too. The locals should have agency in these decisions.
But it's important to think through things more generally too, right? That's how you develop a consistent set of beliefs and don't end up with a compartmentalized, contradictory dogma (as frequently seen on the alt/far right).
Canada being on that list is eye opening cause you speak to the their natives and you will here some shit.
Is this a trick question? Based on the entirety of the available data.
The TMT has the benefit of sheer collecting area. The old telescopes can definitely be upgraded to have newer adaptive optics, but will never reach the resolving power of the TMT.
Real talk, I've only learnt what they've been doing to the natives in Canada last year.
Fucking horrific.
As polls most often do, yet they support the same conclusion.
Wanting to expand our knowledge by building a giant telescope on a fucking volcano is textbook white settler colonial though?Man, gtfo with that shit.
Seems like even more reason to remove one or two old ones and replace them with the TMT. It's for the greater scientific good after all.
Funny how folks can steal land, divide it up, then turn to the locals and say "Stop holding back progress, this is for the good of mankind".
Funny how marginalized people always have to shoulder the cost of "progress"