Telescope Fight in Hawaii

marplots

Penultimate Amazing
M
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
29,167
The recent protests against the Dakota Access Pipe Line (DAPL) by Native Americans brought the idea of sacred ground into the news. In October, a similar dispute arose between scientists who wanted to put a new telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and natives set against the construction (an 18 story observatory) on the basis of "sacred grounds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

The conflict between native superstitions and the DAPL saw support from both environmentalists and ant-corporatists. In Hawaii however, the argument pits native concerns against scientific research.

Will superstitions once again win?

Additional info: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...le-second-appeal-hawaii-supreme-court-n690276
 
Last edited:
It looks like there are some pretty massive differences in the two situations.

-There is no danger to actual local resources such as water.
-What danger of contamination there is, is almost completely trivially correctable (litter).
-The specific site of the observatory does not contain any burials, shrines, and is not the sacred peak.
-The natives have been consulted throughout, and many (perhaps even the vast majority) support the project with the safeguards that are in place.
-There is no 'reroute' available.
-The benefits are to the wider science community and in line with native beliefs.

Without the dire environmental concerns, lack of representation in the decisions, and more than straight economic benefit for a small number of businesses, it's not fair to frame it as the same fight of 'superstition', even if termite-corporatists weigh in the same.
 
There are many differences, but the appeal to Native superstition is common.

In particular:
"The Board of Land and Natural Resources and the designated Hearing Officer in the administrative proceeding below have systematically violated the Temple of Lono’s due process rights as party to the proceeding below by (1) refusing to permit the Temple to raise the question: Has the Applicant demonstrated a hostility toward the Traditional Hawaiian Faith that disqualifies the Applicant from receiving the permit requested? and (2) denying the Temple’s due process rights to full participation in the proceeding by refusing to consider numerous motions filed by the Temple." https://kingdomofhawaiiinfo.wordpre...nd-the-telescope-at-the-hawaii-supreme-court/
 
Science over religion always!!!!! Profit over religion mostly never!!!! Profit over protection of resources never!!!!!!!!!
 
its so ridiculous, revisionist history and nonsense. Totally ashamed here. On the one hand this left hook of the bible belt shoves christianity from the left and the right on anything and everything, including government, but when its convenient, they claim "sacred" anti-christian when it comes to real estate claims.

The only state dumber than mississippi, and they want to get rid of a science tool
 
marplots said:
The recent protests against the Dakota Access Pipe Line (DAPL) by Native Americans brought the idea of sacred ground into the news. In October, a similar dispute arose between scientists who wanted to put a new telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and natives set against the construction (an 18 story observatory) on the basis of "sacred grounds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

The conflict between native superstitions and the DAPL saw support from both environmentalists and ant-corporatists. In Hawaii however, the argument pits native concerns against scientific research.

Will superstitions once again win?

Additional info: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...le-second-appeal-hawaii-supreme-court-n690276
Click to expand...

I don't believe it. I think it is just a made-up story.
 
marplots said:
The recent protests against the Dakota Access Pipe Line (DAPL) by Native Americans brought the idea of sacred ground into the news. In October, a similar dispute arose between scientists who wanted to put a new telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and natives set against the construction (an 18 story observatory) on the basis of "sacred grounds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

The conflict between native superstitions and the DAPL saw support from both environmentalists and ant-corporatists. In Hawaii however, the argument pits native concerns against scientific research.

Will superstitions once again win?

Additional info: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...le-second-appeal-hawaii-supreme-court-n690276
Click to expand...

My take on it, being from Hawaii. Most native Hawaiians are not opposed to the TMT (thirty meter telescope). But there are some militant people who created human roadblocks up to road to the peak of the mountain. The issue gained notoriety when some celebreties supported the oppostion of building the telescope. I believe there are some court issues ongoing but the advance of science and the economic activity associated with construction and other activities outweigh the opinions of some militant protesters, in my own opinion.
 
Theres been a pro TMT facebook group for a few years now. Hawaii had one of the first government buildings with lightbulbs, EVER. THis anti-tech, anti-education garbage running rampant as if its some revered part of Hawaiian history is just pure garbage
 
Cosmic Yak said:
On the off-chance you're being serious, the story is real. I've been there and met the protesters.
Their ignorance and paranoia left me distinctly unimpressed.
Click to expand...
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a symptom of a larger problem and so-called 'native superstition' is the last bastion of defense in relation to a history of abuse and various forms of legalized rape by the administrators of the systems of disparity and their supporters, which have overwhelmed the sacredness of life on earth for the sake of profit, and scientists have played their part in that, so anything which comes from that sector is also naturally distrusted and otherwise regarded with suspicion - whether it is relatively harmless or not - the bigger picture is the thing that these people see.

They might win a few small victories here and there but the majority ride the wave of this assumed progress motivated by greed, the hording of wealth and the rich lording it over the poor, the intelligent lording it over the *stupid* - same old same old and it is no superstition to think that this practice is not going to end at all well, even for the majority who currently invest their support in and protection of the systems of disparity.

The battle is already lost on that front.
 
marplots said:
The recent protests against the Dakota Access Pipe Line (DAPL) by Native Americans brought the idea of sacred ground into the news. In October, a similar dispute arose between scientists who wanted to put a new telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii and natives set against the construction (an 18 story observatory) on the basis of "sacred grounds."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/science/hawaii-thirty-meter-telescope-mauna-kea.html

The conflict between native superstitions and the DAPL saw support from both environmentalists and ant-corporatists. In Hawaii however, the argument pits native concerns against scientific research.

Will superstitions once again win?

Additional info: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...le-second-appeal-hawaii-supreme-court-n690276
Click to expand...

If somebody wanted to raze Vatican , what would be your reaction ? What do you think would be the reaction of catholics ? What do you think it is so different here ?

just playing devil advocate.
 
phunk said:
The DAPL issue wasn't just about superstition. It was about them not things like this destroying their water supply:

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pipeline-s...-150-miles-dakota-access-protest-camp-1596371
Click to expand...

Sacred lands was part of the argument.

I no longer think cultural heritage should hold any currency, at least not when it impinges on practical matters. We treat these notions with kid gloves because we don't want to insult some group, but it boils down to stone-age beliefs having sway in the modern world. I find that antithetical to my inner skeptic.

I can't on the one hand think primitive superstitions complete bollocks and then accept them as a basis for any real world decisions. If the natives want to keep their traditions alive - by way of museum or reenactment - that's fine. It's what people do. We have holidays and parades and dress-up. But don't expect me to give the affectation any substance. It amounts to a hobby, nothing more.
 
marplots said:
Sacred lands was part of the argument.

I no longer think cultural heritage should hold any currency, at least not when it impinges on practical matters. We treat these notions with kid gloves because we don't want to insult some group, but it boils down to stone-age beliefs having sway in the modern world. I find that antithetical to my inner skeptic.

I can't on the one hand think primitive superstitions complete bollocks and then accept them as a basis for any real world decisions. If the natives want to keep their traditions alive - by way of museum or reenactment - that's fine. It's what people do. We have holidays and parades and dress-up. But don't expect me to give the affectation any substance. It amounts to a hobby, nothing more.
Click to expand...

When it isn't yours
 
cullennz said:
When it isn't yours
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'd be happy to dismiss Christian claims to nonsense on the same basis. But if you mean the US generally, I very much think slavery was worth getting rid of and have no problem tossing aside the Confederate flag.

On the other hand, if Civil War reenactors want to get together for a weekend of dressing up? Fine with me. And if a telescope works better on top of Mount Rushmore? Go for it.

I disagree that social diversity should have the same cache and value as biological diversity. Just as soon as we edit out all the bad historical baggage, we are modifying the culture anyhow. The appeal to preservation fails as authenticity evaporates. If it feels better, consider it cultural evolution instead of extinction.
 
marplots said:
Not at all. I'd be happy to dismiss Christian claims to nonsense on the same basis. But if you mean the US generally, I very much think slavery was worth getting rid of and have no problem tossing aside the Confederate flag.

On the other hand, if Civil War reenactors want to get together for a weekend of dressing up? Fine with me. And if a telescope works better on top of Mount Rushmore? Go for it.

I disagree that social diversity should have the same cache and value as biological diversity. Just as soon as we edit out all the bad historical baggage, we are modifying the culture anyhow. The appeal to preservation fails as authenticity evaporates. If it feels better, consider it cultural evolution instead of extinction.
Click to expand...


So pulling down the white house or the statue of liberty for, say a pipeline wouldn't be a worry for you?
 
cullennz said:
So pulling down the white house or the statue of liberty for, say a pipeline wouldn't be a worry for you?
Click to expand...

On the basis that they are "sacred"? They aren't. They are nice and all, but in the end, just buildings.

We could play the game the other way around. How would you feel about requiring news broadcasts in Navajo? Or mandating, on all government projects, the paid consultation of a shaman to make sure no spirits are disturbed?

We all recognize how ridiculous these people are, but we insist on treating them as if they were mature adults. It's a luxury in most cases and it feels good to do it. But in practical matters we should ignore them.
 
I mostly agree with you Marplots, but I do think that some things have value, not for the thing itself, but for it's connection with history.

For instance, a reproduction of a painting is valued less than the original, even if no one could tell the difference, because as human beings we find value in the fact that this was the canvas, this was the paint, with which the master created his masterpiece.

Tourists go to Rome and see the Colosseum not just because it is beautiful, but because of the history that took place there. An exact reproduction built somewhere else would attract far fewer visitors. In terms of people's experiences there is value in that authentic connection to history and that value can be measured, to some extent, in terms of tourist dollars spent: there is a real world value to that.

In some sense value is subjective anyway, an apartment with a view of central park goes for more than one with a different view, but why? Because people happen to like one view and not the other. When you get beyond the point of meeting people's basic needs for food, shelter, clothing, you will find that most of what we, as a society, put our resources into, are all just subjective tastes.

So, does our society value scientific advancement more than the subjective idea of keeping a particular peak in Hawaii untouched? I certainly hope so. But from the perspective of some I can understand that they may attach at least some value to the latter.

PS In spite of the above, I still think opposition to the telescope is stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom