Slashdot Mirror
Giant Telescope Project Stalled By Hawaiian Natives (khon2.com)
Fudge Factor 3000 writes: The Hawaiian Supreme Court has pulled a construction permit for the Thirty Meter Telescope project. A vocal minority of Hawaiians has vehemently protested the construction of the telescope for religious reasons. Now, they have been successful in contesting the construction permit. The ruling reads in part: "The process followed by the Board here did not meet these standards. Quite simply, the Board put the cart before the horse when it issued the permit before the request for a contested case hearing was resolved and the hearing was held. Accordingly, the permit cannot stand."
But the hypocrisy that will come from the complaints about the "Vocal Minority" will be over the top. All I have to say to both sides on this is, "Welcome to the rule of law and individual rights"
There are not many places on Earth where a telescope of this size can go. Hawaii was chosen because of the near-ideal weather at high altitude, and a low Northern Hemisphere latitude, which would make the Thirty Meter Telescope an ideal companion to the European E-ELT now being built in Chile. So with Hawaii now out of the picture, where could we put it now?
How about the Qinghai Plateau of Tibet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Plateau)? This is even higher than Maunakea, though the weather will not be as favorable and the latitude is somewhat too far north.
"Cut the crap, how much money to appease the spirits of your ancestors?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A vocal minority of Hawaiians has vehemently protested the construction of the telescope for religious reasons.
Don't you love how people can make up nonsensical stories about how something is sacred to them to stop activities they don't like? Sometimes they even believe the nonsense they are spouting. But it's still nonsense. Personally I find scientific inquiry to be sacred ground and I can actually show how scientific inquiry benefits mankind. If they want to show how this telescope will cause some objective problem (environmental, logistical, financial, whatever) then by all means let's slow down and consider if the telescope is a good idea. But religious objections carry no weight with me.
So they have to hold a hearing so everyone can have their say. Fine. Hold the hearing. But religious objections are no grounds to stop construction of the telescope. Let them tell us how sacred this particular patch of ground is and then build the damn thing. I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.
Scientists in this case are discounting something that isn't there, not destroying stuff that is.
If Maunakea is so sacred, why...
The telescope is on Mauna Kea.
In any case, neither Mauna Kea nor Mauna Loa was used as a bombing range. You're probably thinking of Pohakuloa.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Maybe they're tired of white invaders trying to trample their natural landscapes and culture.
In case you didn't notice Hawaii is the only state where white people are not the majority. Not even close. White people account for less than 20% of the population and they certainly aren't in a position to "trample" anything if the voting public cares about an issue. Hawaii has an asian plurality and if you've ever been to Hawaii (I have) you'll quickly note that almost all the white people are tourists. Nobody is getting trampled here and they work very hard in Hawaii to respect local traditions. There are already telescopes on top of this volcano and aside from a few crazies, people are fine with it. The notion that this one violates something sacred is ridiculous.
I don't know specifics of this project or the religious complaint against it, but consider this:
Some projects may have an environmental or "beauty" impact (what if the top of the mountain has a beautiful view, and the project is about to cut down all the trees in the area and limit access to that view?). This telescope may do something like that. People are upset at losing a natural resource: the beauty of nature in their area. It should be a national park for future generations to enjoy the same view I enjoyed, they might say.
So, they go to complain. But saying "I don't like this because it will ruin my view" will get everyone to laugh at you. "This is the cost of doing business", they tell you, "It's good for the local economy, and science, and whatever else." So they get ignored during the meeting and everyone goes about their business, not including the protestors.
The protestors are frustrated but realize that the US takes freedom of religion very seriously. Suddenly the idea is to call the land sacred and that will get some more legitimate discussion on the topic -- no one wants to be seen as discriminating against a religion. Now, media is covering the loss of environment since you called it sacred. Now, business and project leaders are calling you to make deals. Now, you're included in the process.
So what I pose to you is: is it possible that many of these "mythological" arguments in court are not actually completely sincere beliefs, but rather attempts to not be entirely trampled by the system? That freedom of religion is essentially a court "hack" that puts you on more equal footing?
In a falsifiability test between 'Hawaiian Magma Gods' and String theory, my money is on Hawaiian Magma Gods.
Maunakea isn't like the Matterhorn. The area on the Maunakea plateau that's high enough etc to suit astronomers' needs is actually quite large, and the Thirty Meter Telescope's proposed location is at least a mile away from the summit and at least 500 feet lower.
But about 8 of the existing dozen or so scopes are practically right on the summit. Much more intrusive both to native sensibilities and to tourists. Built before cultural sensitivity was a thing, I guess, and before native Hawaiians had done much to organize politically. I think those opposed to the TMT may well largely be objecting to "one more straw" rather than to this telescope considered in isolation.
If all these scopes were planned for new construction now I think a reasonable compromise would be to disallow putting any of them above about the 13400' contour on the summit. And I imagine that by now many of the scopes on the summit are no longer all that scientifically useful anyways, having been eclipsed by bigger scopes and better technology.
Why not have a trade- go ahead and build the TMT, which will be a big scientific boon, but promise to gradually phase out and demolish the scopes on the summit and try to restore the summit area to a relatively pristine condition?
> vehemently protested the construction of the telescope for religious reasons.
Maybe I'm cynical but I wonder if this is more about wanting a payoff than anything religious.