The conclusion of the recent one I posted said that Natives don't support it with a 2.7 margin of error with 48/44 against. That's why I think more data needs to be collected.
-
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
The conclusion of the recent one I posted said that Natives don't support it with a 2.7 margin of error with 48/44 against. That's why I think more data needs to be collected.
That's right, fuck the natives, we gotta advance our knowledge no matter the cost. The bloody savages will thank us for this in due time.
Ayylmao
It's a volcano, my dude, not the great wall of China.Also, the telescope is getting built anyway, so it's not like your opinion or mine matter ;)
There's a lot of human history to provide those sort of opportunities to reflect. Even better, they provide a contextual grounding for you to actually grasp the significance of things like the violation of native sovereignty, the perils of colonial attitudes... you know real things. Not disjointed thought experiments that people like Sam Harris and Dave Rubin love to lose themselves in.
Then don't frame the discussion of colonialism based solely on white people. As if the rest of us can't be racist or imperialist without them!
I mean you can't ignore the history of the island, this shit all feeds into each other.
By a coalition of Canadian, Japanese, Indian, American and Chinese, no less!
So if enough people make that claim about any piece of land then people aren't supposed to build anything on it?That doesn't make any sense, especially considering other telescopes have already been built there.
I've made my point in this thread, at this point it's devolved into "so what the majority of natives want TMT, we should still respect the wishes of the vocal minority" 🙄
The only other point I want to make is the ridiculous shit posting by those against the telescope. They've called those that are arguing for it everything from racists and colonialists to White supremacists. All this kind of discourse does is destroy any kind of productive discussion and the fact that the moderating team is gleefully partaking in this kind of thinking is really sad.
Apparently the fact that I argue for the advancement of humanity through the sciences makes me a white colonialist, fuck me I guess the mirror has been lying to me all these years
The only other point I want to make is the ridiculous shit posting by those against the telescope. They've called those that are arguing for it everything from racists and colonialists to White supremacists. All this kind of discourse does is destroy any kind of productive discussion and the fact that the moderating team is gleefully partaking in this kind of thinking is really sad.
Apparently the fact that I argue for the advancement of humanity through the sciences makes me a white colonialist, fuck me I guess the mirror has been lying to me all these years
If a good amount of the native population have a problem with it, absolutely.
Yeah that's more or less how land designation works. Just because existing telescopes were built doesn't mean the land adjacent to them are not still considered sacred. It's equivalent to building a telescope on half a christian cemetery and then being bewildered that anybody would have issue with developing the rest of the cemetery. You need something more than a telescope to help open your mind on these issues it seems.
They can have a problem with it, that still doesn't make any sense and as I already mentioned before, the telescope is being built regardless.
When you have multiple people in here saying "It's just a barren rock", "They should be grateful", "science > sacred land", then yes that absolutely is colonial thought. The amount of disrespect shown to the people there ITT is staggering.
So before you were saying that less than 30 percent of them were against it and making it seem like it didn't matter because they were a minority. It possibly being closer to 40 percent doesn't matter and the fact that the most recent survey would have prevented almost 1/4 of previous respondents from participating doesn't matter to you. It's also obvious obvious you didn't look at the 2016 data because it had a margin of error of over 4.9 percent for the total population and over 8 for native Hawaiians so that 46/45 split could have actually meant more were opposed. Also this:
The most accurate way to determine their level of support would be to actually ask them considering multiple surveys by different institutions have wildly different results over the last few years. I mean most of you in support won't care either way if they are opposed to it so the least that can be done is to actually get a proper reading of their thoughts.
Last edited:
Ah McPaul the authority on cultural significance to indigenous people.
Stop.
The existence of a margin of error does not imply that all outcomes along that margin are equally likely.
Even if did, you'd then be arguing that it's equally possible that an even larger majority support the TMT, as it is that the majority is smaller than what the data suggests.
The possibility of a respondent selection bias does not imply the impact of that bias on the results.
Furthermore, I suggested that the data in its entirety supports the conclusion that a majority support it. A single poll suggesting that it might in fact be a larger minority opposed is what we call an outlier.
This is basic stats.
The term "colonialism" is a direct reference to the brutal European colonization of the world of the last 500 or so years that drives and shapes the current narrative of our politics and economics. How we define imperialism and racism is based on that context. Leveling it off by saying "everybody does it" essentially renders it meaningless as if history is irrelevant.
And I said before that you could have an even larger percentage of people in support based on the results from the 2018 poll which obviously transfers over to the 2016 as well. I was pointing that out because you were saying either way with the margin of error taken into consideration the majority of native Hawaiians were supportive. Again, the poll posted by Thordinson is more recent and shows that majority of native Hawaiians oppose it. Would you now say that that is accurate then?
Yeah, there were many times I've doubted how progressive this forum is, this thread being one of them.
This thread has gone 'mask off'.
"Thought experiments" are an alt-right thing now, are they? That's disappointing.
And to be clear, I said the thread was interesting and made me think about things in ways I mostly hadn't before. I asked the same questions to the thread that I asked myself, thinking maybe it would spur interesting discussion:
What's the minimum number of people needed to stop a project beneficial to everyone (any search of "practical applications of astronomy" or similar show how beneficial the field is, so I didn't think that claim was contentious, especially on Era)? I personally think the answer is probably zero; even if there are no indigenous people remaining, the cultural importance of sites are still relevant to everyone else and should still be preserved. I suppose these become archaeological things at that point?
Can cultural heritage extend past physical landforms? I actually didn't make up my mind on this one and want to do more reading on the subject.
Would deference to locals extend past acts of preservation of cultural sites/areas to acts of destruction of cultural sites/areas? This is actually something that came up a lot in my economics classes, especially on the topic of ethics of globalization. It seems reasonable at first to try to get Brazil to not destroy the Amazon (since that's bad for basically everyone) but most of the people saying that come from countries that themselves have industrialized on the back of natural resources before the dangers of climate change were apparent. It's sometimes considered a form of "economic colonization" for developed nations to ask/demand developing nations to then bear the burden after the (mostly white) developed nations reaped all the benefits. This one is less of a cultural thing though so it's not as great a fit for this thread (but is something the thread caused me to think/read up on, which is why I mentioned it).
Ridiculous right? Isn't China currently taking advantage of some African country? Hell the whole of Europe decided one day to see who could fuck Africa the most.
So what is this telescope supposed to do for mankind exactly?
What's even the point of astronomy? Lol stop looking at the stars, you fucking nerds
If the argument is that this is so important that it's worth disrespecting a culture instead of putting it some where else I'd like to know.
That's not my argument. I just find it ridiculous to say that this telescope won't do much for humanity.
Who said anything about the alt-right? Those guys are grifters who come up with pseudo intellectual talking points and sophistry to peddle their grift. They exercise in hypotheticals so they can avoid inconvenient context. Which happens to help funnel people towards an alt right trajectory under the guise "rationality", but that's not really their concern.
They do what they do on purpose though. Other people might do it sincerely unaware of the parallels, and I think it's an exercise that's not terribly productive or relevant at best.
Cemeteries get relocated all the time when new things need to get built.I doubt most christians would give a shit, especially when the thing being built is something that helps humanity.
I'm not sure what you want people to say when in reality it is just a volcano and scients(from different continents) want to build a telescope there that would help us understand more about space.
I misunderstood your initial post. My apologies.
However, I think the point Slayven is making is still valid. It all stems from colonialism and the fact that other international players are involved doesn't change the fact that those players can't dictate what goes on that volcano without the permission of the government from the local city council to the federal agencies that hand out permits. Canada and China can give 2 billion dollars, but the federal, state, and local governments don't have to accept it. Ultimately, control is not in tribal hands.
But let's be frank: white people caused this problem through colonialism and as the demographic that holds all the power, is responsible for cleaning this mess up. The best we can do as fellow PoC is to stand in solidarity, amplify other marginalized voices, and use whatever privilege we have to do so. You're not wrong either, but I think we need to take a different path.
Momoa's participation is raising awareness and hopefully helps the other work being done to encourage Canadian universities to divest if protests continue.
University of Toronto made a statement on the TMT a few weeks back:
University of Toronto made a statement on the TMT a few weeks back:
http://www.dunlap.utoronto.ca/statement-on-the-thirty-meter-telescope-tmt/
These have all signed off on it.
White people did not cause this problem. Mauna Kea would remain the best place in the hemisphere to do astronomy regardless of the area's history. If white people hadn't come a-colonizing, the international astronomical community would still very much want to put telescopes up there.
And the local community would still very much want them to fuck off somewhere else.
*some portion of the local community
But yes, I never claimed otherwise.
So? If the tribe controlled the island, they can tell those astronomers to fuck off. And you didn't refute my comment that the tribes weren't a part of the approval process. You think residents of gentrified neighborhoods consent to being gentrified?
Please, enlighten me because I'm seeing a bunch of people in this thread who are disregarding the wishes of the indigenous people which is awfully similar to colonizing behavior.
"Those natives must be too stupid to understand how good this telescope would be on their historical and culturally important site, fuck trying to preserve it, they just dont't know what's good for them! /s"
That's how some of yall in this thread sound
That's how some of yall in this thread sound
Glad that UofT has a reasonable position on this. The fact that it's for "science" doesn't give someone carte Blanche to ignore these local concerns. It seems vile do to so when indigenous peoples have been victims for so long, unless you really don't care about them and are happy wiping out their culture and heritage.
I think these discussions are healthy but some of the nuance in the current TMT situation is not being communicated.
The TMT project has been in the works for over 15 years, but Mauna Kea was selected as the site back in 2009. Since that time, it has undergone a rigorous environmental impact study and it worked extensively to accommodate the concerns of the local community. For example, the TMT construction site is not located on the exact summit of Mauna Kea, but at a position over a mile away to the NNE. Archeological studies have shown no previous cultural activity or burials at this location, and no species will be impacted by TMT's presence there. Also, the telescope enclosure will not be visible from lower elevations at that location. I believe it will also be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Mauna Kea is arguably the best astronomical observing location on Earth. It is a false equivalence to say it can be just moved to the Canary Islands. Moving TMT there would mean a lesser instrument, one that may not even warrant construction given the cost. Indeed, the weather on La Palma is poorer than on Mauna Kea, meaning fewer clear nights and worse image quality, and the lower elevation of La Palma means some projects, particularly studying exoplanets in the mid-infrared, will not be possible. Management of Mauna Kea has improved dramatically over the years that observatories have been there, with great deference and respect to native Hawaiian concerns. For example, all construction activities are accompanied by further activities to return any disturbed land to its natural state. This includes the decommissioning of telescopes, even TMT, in the future. Note also that the observatories are on public land, and their presence has not restricted access to the summit area to the public.
The native Hawaiians who are currently protesting have a right to do so. The protestors who were arrested were cited for illegally blocking a public road, not because they were protesting. The arrests were done on the third day of protest, after they were asked repeatedly to not block the road. Those who were arrested, especially the elders, were handled very respectfully and soon released - there was no violence. The arresting officers were from local police. The National Guard was called up, but not to interact with the protestors but instead to provide logistical support to the local police effort.
Though Hawaii has had an unfortunate history where native concerns have not been considered by those in power (to put it mildly), the TMT project has tried to work differently. It recognized from the very beginning that native community engagement is important. For example, TMT will be funding the THINK program, providing up to $1M / year to support education within the local community. In addition, it has begun a Workforce Pipeline Program to steer Hawaiians into science and technology jobs. I believe it is also the aim of the project to staff the facility with locals. The project will be an economic benefit to the local community.
TMT followed the rules laid down by the State of Hawaii, including affirmation of its building permit by the Hawaii Supreme Court. It has not acted unilaterally in its development without regard to native concerns. Hopefully, the project will continue to engage with the protestors to communicate its net benefits to Hawaii and its native community. The project and its international backers, however, can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be up to Hawaiians themselves to decide if the project will go forward there.
For further details on the TMT project, see http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org.
The TMT project has been in the works for over 15 years, but Mauna Kea was selected as the site back in 2009. Since that time, it has undergone a rigorous environmental impact study and it worked extensively to accommodate the concerns of the local community. For example, the TMT construction site is not located on the exact summit of Mauna Kea, but at a position over a mile away to the NNE. Archeological studies have shown no previous cultural activity or burials at this location, and no species will be impacted by TMT's presence there. Also, the telescope enclosure will not be visible from lower elevations at that location. I believe it will also be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Mauna Kea is arguably the best astronomical observing location on Earth. It is a false equivalence to say it can be just moved to the Canary Islands. Moving TMT there would mean a lesser instrument, one that may not even warrant construction given the cost. Indeed, the weather on La Palma is poorer than on Mauna Kea, meaning fewer clear nights and worse image quality, and the lower elevation of La Palma means some projects, particularly studying exoplanets in the mid-infrared, will not be possible. Management of Mauna Kea has improved dramatically over the years that observatories have been there, with great deference and respect to native Hawaiian concerns. For example, all construction activities are accompanied by further activities to return any disturbed land to its natural state. This includes the decommissioning of telescopes, even TMT, in the future. Note also that the observatories are on public land, and their presence has not restricted access to the summit area to the public.
The native Hawaiians who are currently protesting have a right to do so. The protestors who were arrested were cited for illegally blocking a public road, not because they were protesting. The arrests were done on the third day of protest, after they were asked repeatedly to not block the road. Those who were arrested, especially the elders, were handled very respectfully and soon released - there was no violence. The arresting officers were from local police. The National Guard was called up, but not to interact with the protestors but instead to provide logistical support to the local police effort.
Though Hawaii has had an unfortunate history where native concerns have not been considered by those in power (to put it mildly), the TMT project has tried to work differently. It recognized from the very beginning that native community engagement is important. For example, TMT will be funding the THINK program, providing up to $1M / year to support education within the local community. In addition, it has begun a Workforce Pipeline Program to steer Hawaiians into science and technology jobs. I believe it is also the aim of the project to staff the facility with locals. The project will be an economic benefit to the local community.
TMT followed the rules laid down by the State of Hawaii, including affirmation of its building permit by the Hawaii Supreme Court. It has not acted unilaterally in its development without regard to native concerns. Hopefully, the project will continue to engage with the protestors to communicate its net benefits to Hawaii and its native community. The project and its international backers, however, can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be up to Hawaiians themselves to decide if the project will go forward there.
For further details on the TMT project, see http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org.
Last edited:
This is a beautiful post, thank you for taking the time to write all this out.
Unfortunately I think a lot of posters in this thread already have their mind made up because of some misguided sense of righteousness.
Thank you for this information! I will look into that site to learn more about the project.
