• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Hawaii 30 Meter Telescope Controversy

theprestige said:
I'm open to an argument in favor of shifting scientific research into the private sector, but I really wasn't expecting you to take that position. So okay, sure. Go for it.
Click to expand...

It's not a SCIENCE vs RELIGION issue at all. It's a land use dispute, and legal remedies for those have existed forever. Let a court determine who owns the damn mountain, or parts of the mountain. Then what's done there is up to those owners, whether they're building telescopes or apiaries or strip clubs or nature preserves for paralytic turtles.
 
Belz... said:
Do you have a source for that? Wiki doesn't mention it.
Click to expand...

I read a book about the sculpting of the place. The guy who did it was a colorful character from all accounts. I don't have a cite at the moment, but I suspect a National Park Service site would have more info than Wikipedia.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I read a book about the sculpting of the place. The guy who did it was a colorful character from all accounts. I don't have a cite at the moment, but I suspect a National Park Service site would have more info than Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

Right. It's sometimes frustrating how detailed some Wiki articles can be and how utterly barren others are.
 
Belz... said:
Right. It's sometimes frustrating how detailed some Wiki articles can be and how utterly barren others are.
Click to expand...

What confuses me is when Chrome offers to translate a Wikipedia page for me when the page is already in English. What does Chrome think I speak, and why? It only ever does that for Wikipedia.
 
I actually like the finished design. The original "full from the waist up" design originally planned looked way too cluttered and crowded, like all four Presidents are trying to fit into an elevator, with Jefferson and especially Roosevelt almost being pushed into the background.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's not a SCIENCE vs RELIGION issue at all. It's a land use dispute, and legal remedies for those have existed forever. Let a court determine who owns the damn mountain, or parts of the mountain. Then what's done there is up to those owners, whether they're building telescopes or apiaries or strip clubs or nature preserves for paralytic turtles.
Click to expand...

The ownership is known. The dispute arises from a claim that the owner should be barred from using the land.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I actually like the finished design. The original "full from the waist up" design originally planned looked way too cluttered and crowded, like all four Presidents are trying to fit into an elevator, with Jefferson and especially Roosevelt almost being pushed into the background.
Click to expand...

I think the natural mountain would have looked better left alone. A bunch of human faces and heads doesn't enhance nature's beauties, and even taken as individuals none of those guys were lookers. (Sources in his day did call Washington handsome, but I think their standards were lax compared to today's. None of the four would land their own TV show or fragrance today.)
 
theprestige said:
The ownership is known. The dispute arises from a claim that the owner should be barred from using the land.
Click to expand...

Such a claim should be provable in court or dismissed. Landowners who cause harm to others by use of their own property is also a situation with vast legal precedent. There is no reason this conflict should merit consideration outside of the legal framework.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Such a claim should be provable in court or dismissed. Landowners who cause harm to others by use of their own property is also a situation with vast legal precedent. There is no reason this conflict should merit consideration outside of the legal framework.
Click to expand...

I don't know what this means. The conflict is a legal conflict, being handled by the legal system.

But ultimately, it's a conflict over value judgments. The system is not being asked to adjudicate a matter of fact, but a matter of dispute between conflicting goods - scientific good versus cultural good. This kind of dispute is not so easily resolvable. It's ultimately a policy dispute, and thus it has significance to society as a whole. It's something we should definitely consider, even if we are not directly involved with the mechanics of the legal dispute as such.

What kind of consideration are you seeing here, that you think should be cut off?
 
One could make the argument that a natural wonder belongs to everyone, and as such it should only be altered for extremely good reasons.
 
Olmstead said:
One could make the argument that a natural wonder belongs to everyone, and as such it should only be altered for extremely good reasons.
Click to expand...

And one can make that argument, in court. That's where the arguments are supposed to happen. Anywhere else is just blather.
 
Here is a public opinion survey:
https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/08/civil-beat-poll-strong-support-for-tmt-but-little-love-for-ige/
The two big takeaways is that majority support the project and that native Hawaiians are split with 44% support, 48% oppose.

The site of the telescopes has no previous human presence: no human artifacts of any kind. I suppose one could say the whole of the mountain is "sacred" but it isn't one of the meeting places or burial places on the mountain for native Hawaiians.

http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org/facts-about-tmt/
 
theprestige said:
I don't know what this means. The conflict is a legal conflict, being handled by the legal system.

But ultimately, it's a conflict over value judgments. The system is not being asked to adjudicate a matter of fact, but a matter of dispute between conflicting goods - scientific good versus cultural good. This kind of dispute is not so easily resolvable. It's ultimately a policy dispute, and thus it has significance to society as a whole. It's something we should definitely consider, even if we are not directly involved with the mechanics of the legal dispute as such.

What kind of consideration are you seeing here, that you think should be cut off?
Click to expand...

I disagree: the conflict over conflicting goods is outside the scope. The actual problem is who has the rights to this particular piece of land. That's all that requires answer. If party A owns it then it's irrelevant whether Science is enabled to pursue her noble quest yada yada because it's up to party A to decide. If A wants telescopes they can do that. If they want a fried chicken restaurant they can do that. If B really really really wants something else they can buy the land from A. Complaining about A will achieve nothing, and deservedly so.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I disagree: the conflict over conflicting goods is outside the scope. The actual problem is who has the rights to this particular piece of land. That's all that requires answer. If party A owns it then it's irrelevant whether Science is enabled to pursue her noble quest yada yada because it's up to party A to decide. If A wants telescopes they can do that. If they want a fried chicken restaurant they can do that. If B really really really wants something else they can buy the land from A. Complaining about A will achieve nothing, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...

It's a science reserve:
The Reserve was established in 1968, and is leased by the State of Hawaiʻi's Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).[20] The University of Hawaiʻi manages the site[20] and leases land to several multi-national facilities, which have invested more than $2 billion in science and technology.[1] The lease expires in 2033 and after that 40 of 45 square kilometers (25 of 28 square miles) revert to the state of Hawaii.[19]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Kea_Observatories
 
TragicMonkey said:
And one can make that argument, in court. That's where the arguments are supposed to happen. Anywhere else is just blather.
Click to expand...

But if enough people protest and enough people change their minds, laws can be amended. I wouldn't call that empty blather.
 
I posted earlier that this has already gone to the Hawaii Supreme Court. It's already been decided in the courts. The local Hawaii land bureau gave the builders a permit, and that permit was found valid by the courts. The state of Hawaii owns the land.

It's done. Build the telescope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom