Slashdot Mirror
How the Thirty Meter Telescope Ruling Will Impact Future Astronomy Projects (forbes.com)
StartsWithABang writes: If you want to explore the Universe, you need a telescope with good light gathering power, a high-quality camera to make the most out of each photon, and a superior observing location, complete with dark skies, clear nights, and still, high-altitude air. There are only a few places on Earth that have all of these qualities consistently, and perhaps the best one is atop Mauna Kea on Hawaii. Yet generations of wrongs have occurred to create the great telescope complex that's up there today, and astronomers continue to lease the land for far less than it's worth despite violating the original contract. That's astronomy as we know it so far, and perhaps the Mauna Kea protests signal a long awaited end to that.
like seriously why should we need someone's permission to build on land? there's already telescopes there.
like the Second Coming or Santa Claus or something?
is not inside the atmosphere
Once again it boils down to how much money they're giving the natives. Not historical propriety, not ethics, nope. Just how much money the natives are getting.
Isn't this one of those rare occasions where federal funding is actually called for? Pure research, indigenous people, greater community and world need, small budget requirement. FEDGOV pay the market rent on a 50 year lease.
JJ
. . . and tell him what these Hawaiian Terrorist are up to! Then they will be banned from entering the USA!
Um, wait . . . OK, continental USA.
But seriously:
astronomers continue to lease the land for far less than it's worth
It's not like the astronomers are building casinos with strippers there.
What's the worth of discovering the secrets of the Cosmos?
Priceless.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
People should stand in the way of perhaps the most benign research that exists on this planet because they didn't get *paid enough*???
> Yet generations of wrongs have occurred
FFS. Give me a break. Sorry, I have no white guilt. Yes, I am privileged, and so are the people complaining about it.
> astronomers continue to lease the land for far less than it's worth
A difference of opinion (on "worth") makes a market. If the land was worth so much, then they should have charged more. But, now that the astronomers are there and have committed significant resources to the project, the lessor is trying to extort them for more. That's pretty scummy.
> despite violating the original contract.
Really? The terms of the lease have been breached by the lessee? That's a slam dunk then. Go to a court to get an order of repossession.
Oh? You haven't or it hasnt worked? I guess it's not so cut-and-dried then.
Let's go burn down the observatory, so this'll never happen again!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and perhaps the best one is atop Mauna Kea on Hawaii.
Im certain that opinion holds some validity in Hawaii, but here in Branson my 30 meter telescope has been praised with such critical acclaim as "do you really need that thing? it blocks out the sun" and "for christ sake its 3 in the morning turn that crap off." the residents here are far more keen to my telescope than some rinky dink hawaiian sensation, thats for sure. In fact, the astronomers community that operates my telescope has released a finding in what scientists are calling "a goddamn fact" that research has concluded I'll be in the cold cold ground before it ever gets taken down, Jessica.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Give me one good alternative that same land could be used for and I'll believe this isn't a money grab.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Have state government purchase the land via eminent domain, then resell or lease it to the astronomers. Problem solved.
This article is pretty off on some things.
But there’s something else to consider: something that hasn’t been properly considered for, honestly, the entire history of the world. How do the native inhabitants of the land that the telescope is proposed to be built on feel about it?
That's absolutely not true. That was considered, quite intensively. The TMT folks bent over backwards to make sure that the people who's nucleotides happen to include the certain chemical arrangement called Hawaiian were well consulted, cultural sensitivities taken into consideration, ect. They actually planned it to be built in an area somewhat not as good for viewing in order to minimize any potential impact on cultural practices on the summit. Until the popular bandwagon got rolling, most people were in support of it.
While many in the media picked up one or two of the soundbites or demands and harped on them as ridiculous or backwards, the reality of the situation is this: a culture that’s many thousands of years old was — in the same imperialist spirit as much of the world — conquered and forced to live in a world they did not choose for themselves.
Maybe thousands, though newer estimates put it at about 800 years IIRC, with previous inhabitants maybe getting killed off by the second wave of immigrants who are the ancestors of Hawaiians. Either way, no one gets to choose the world they were born into. Maybe I wanted to be a citizen of the British Empire, damned colonial rebels. If you have actual prejudice and present issues, that is a legitimate concern. Something that happened to your ancestors, even if it was wrong, not so much.
Earlier this year, many Hawaiians protested the construction of this telescope, seeking to halt its construction until their concerns were addressed.
Many of their concerns were either wrong (for example, that it would damage aquifers) or unprovable (that it would damage the 'spiritual waters' of the Mauna). What do you say about concerns like that? To be fair, mistakes were made in the past with other telescopes, so having concerns about keeping things right is absolutely justified, but that isn't the same as disregarding the environmental impact statement and spreading rumors.
I don't get why people are bending over backwards to justify this. If Christian groups try to influence others, especially science, for their religious/cultural reasons, it is wrong. When, say, Switzerland banned minarets for their 'cultural' reasons, that was also wrong...for the Swiss to say 'You Muslims are of the wrong non-native race/culture so suck it up' is bullshit and everyone knows it. If I were to say that I hold claim to a certain plot of land simply because of my race, everyone would call me an asshole, and rightfully so. That Hawaiians suffered wrongs a century ago should be acknowledged, but it does not justify the same.
While I'm agreeing that we should weigh the need for human scientific advancement against other cultural needs, we should be very careful before deciding to subjugate science infrastructure projects to stone age cultural beliefs. Just as we do not allow native Hawaiians anymore to club somebody to death just because they stepped on the shadow of their ruler, we shouldn't allow arbitrary cultural designations to decide on where science can be done. I hope we can all agree that we have now more enlightened ways of rulemaking.
The only thing keeping the natives from having the correct attitude about this project; i.e. immense pride in having such an important instrument built on their land, is a small-minded primitive tribalism mixed with the entitlement and egotism of an idle dependent life. You don't correct that attitude with the courts, you use the national guard.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
From the article;
That doesn’t sound like opposition to me; that sounds like someone with legitimate concerns who wants to be heard.
Others seem more opposed:
The National Science Foundation should not build this telescope on Haleakala summit.
on top of a volcano... yep they had all kinds of plans for the top of that volcano.....
If the best place to put a new 30 meter telescope was Jerusalem, I'm sure there would be plenty of people protesting the impact of such a holy site. This is just more of the same blase attitude towards Native Americans when wanting to build on any of their sacred sites. There are 3 places to put the telescope. If Hawaii doesn't work, you still have the Andes mountain range in Chile and the Canary Islands. Build it there instead.
See how fast they change their story if the various science entities using the various observatories close them down, move the equipment to the Andes and they receive NO MONEY for any lease from that instant onward.
For residents of the islands, discussion of telescopes on both Mauna Kea and Haleakala is always in the background, coming to the fore when a gateway decision or a major demonstration occurs. The core of the anti-telescope movement are the various Hawaiian sovereignty organizations, and they want the telescopes off of Mauna Kea. I believe the consensus among them is that when the 65 year master lease is up in 2033, everything should go.
So, this fight isn't just over one telescope. It's really a binary deal for the whole thing.
I believe the tenants of Haleakala don't face as much opposition in part because of lesser impact by the facilities and in part because the USAF makes more of an outreach effort.
I think it obvious that if telescope construction had occurred within the context of a still extant Kingdom of Hawaii, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, lacking means to exercise control of the whole, sovereignty activists fight for control where they have the best access to power: state lands. Naturally, Forbes focuses on the economic value of the summit as a commodity, which misses the point. What it might cost to buy off certain elements of the opposition is not the same as - using land zoning jargon - the value via a theoretical "highest and best use".
Pay what they want or don't get the land. If they don't want to sell the land, move on. So what if it's the best place to put the telescope. It's their land!
Sorry, but we didn't realize that there was anything "colonialist" about science.
If Hawaii had always been independent like Fiji, the kanaka*, or commoners, would still be under control of the ali'i, the hereditary nobility, who enforced their rule with an intricate series of prohibitions on the commoners. All of Maunakea above the treeline was under exclusive control of the ali'i. No kanaka could go there, ever. Overall, the kanaka had fewer rights than Russian peasants in the time of the tsars.
So foreign astronomers come to the Big Island, and make a deal with the ali'i to build their telescopes. Some of the Kamehameha family were astronomical hobbyists, after all. I'm assuming that just as in our own history, the researchers would have to carefully avoid the altars and other sacred objects on the mountaintop, which is vast and gently sloped - Maunakea is more massive than the entire Rocky Mountains - and would be granted a concession on a small area near the summit.
Astronomy on this independent Hawaii would be just like astronomy there today, except that the common people, and whatever foreign supporters they could muster, would have no input into the process whatever.
* Please excuse my omission of the A-macron. The character set used here just swallows it.
The protests are being held by liars who lie about the true multi-racial history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, in order to shakedown the government for money.
Using Mauna Kea to study the heavens is a righteous use of land, and a sacred continuation of the Hawaiian culture, that used stars to navigate the seas for hundreds of years. Any who claim it is a desecration are racist pigs who believe that any indigenous culture must be defined only as it was originally seen by white people, instead of honoring the right of people of all ancestries to grow and change over time.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was founded with a multi-racial coalition, was replaced by the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii through internal means, and successfully sued for annexation in 1898 to the US. Insisting that one racial group, defined by a fractional drop of blood, should be able to dominate the decision making processes of the people of Hawaii is evil, and wrong.
From the article:
The telescope is not dead; the legal proceedings happening today are, quite honestly, a failure of negotiations on both sides. The vast majority of people involved in this project want both for the telescope to be built and to have the native population of Hawaiians on board with how this land is used, how the inhabitants are treated, and how future projects are handled moving forward. As Kealoha Pisciotta, the president of the group purportedly opposing the telescope, Protect Mauna Kea (Mauna Kea Anaina Hou) says,
"This is the principle of the mountain and the sanctity of Mauna Kea calls on us to raise the standard. We cannot be vengeful. We need to find pono [righteous] solutions. We need to find good things for astronomers. Cooperation is, I think, really the true part of our human nature, not competition. I think we have to go back to cooperation to survive the future."
This seems informative and underrated.
I presume the present council derives its power from popular election, and that the people are supporting them - more or less, as in any democracy.
That they make reference back to their traditions only shows that the people go in for that sort of thing, even today.
There are 2 other >30 meter telescopes under construction. I felt that 3 was too many. I am glad that there is some excuse to cut that number down to 2. Hopefully, this future telescope will be sacrificed, and the existing telescopes will be able to stay beyond 2033, maximizing the amount of depreciation on the telescopes.
Here is a clear and present need for the Astronomy and Astrophysics Communities that are strong within NASA to demand a return to the Moon and establish both optical and radio observatories, sustained and viable, that are not otherwise hamstrung by cultures and idiosyncrasies of individuals and organizations here on Earth.
Ha ha
Um, no.
The Rocky Mountains stretch from Canada to nearly Mexico. Mauna Kea may be larger than any given peak, but the entire chain? No.
AC
the moon. Sadly, when the current administration came into office, the president cancelled the program to return to the moon and put a permanent base their by dismissing it with the phrase "been there, done that" (we've only barely explored a few square miles of that world).
Observatories and deep-space communications networks (like the Goldstone array) would be best placed on the moon. There is no atmosphere there, so you get the advantages of a space platform, BUT since you're on the surface of a world, there's no need for continual navigation and maneuvering (and thus propellant) to keep from crashing. The moon is close enough for remote operations and control without significant delays and also for the occasional human maintenance/upgrade visit, and it's even better and easier with a moon base.
Finally, there are no "indigenous peoples" on the moon who must be worshipped by modern Politically Correct idiots. If the people trying to keep the telescope from being built in Hawaii were white anglo-saxon protestant (WASP) Christians, the mainstream press would be full of denunciations for their supposed backwardness, but since they are ethnic minority pagans, nobody of significance on the left will rant against their primitive ideology, indeed they will feign a need to respect their traditions, participate in ceremonies to appease their gods, etc.
Since it's sacred, it's not for building a condo on. It's a long hard trek to the shops, uphill going home. It's cold, it's a long way from the beachfront. So what is it worth, other than bugger all?
If the contract (and it should be an agreement of both sides) is breeched, then they can argue the contract is voided by that breech and get redress. If it costs too much, then at the end of the lease, nobody will use it and nobody will plant new observatories on it. And since observatories are the only ones wanting it,it's going to be worth fuck all again.
If it's truly sacred, then this should be fine: it will become sacred and sancrosanct and that's its value, not crude dollars.
But if the market refuses to pay, then it can't be worth that,can it.
What ELSE would they use the land for, and what would that garner in rents? Just because you're in a desert and find a thirsty man doesn't mean you can honestly claim to demand their life savings and indenture for the water that only cost you the price of a laundry visit there, but the shops are shut.
It would be charity to give it away for any less than the cost it took to get it, and it would be charity to give it away for any less than it would cost to replace.
But you don't have any moral right to demand a price above that, since you have abused monopoly power and that is NOT capitalism. And since capitalism is what defines your moral right to profit, neutering it rather removes your right to the profit motive too.
The problem is that if the contract is renewable every year or every five or ten, the telescopes will run 10-15 years at least, so increasing beyond the value of inflation in that time is abusive. Negotiating for more going up there? Well, there's the option to agree or not. And if they disagree, then nobody wins. Enjoy your sacred land. But that at least is morally and ethically correct.
Jacking up the price while there's no option to refuse because your assets need more time to realise their value spent is predatory.
It looks at first blush, that this telescope won't be built. And no more will, either. And when those ones up there reach EOL, they'll be dismantled and removed and then the land will be empty.
And what are the bets that it won't be sacred and preserved for long when it generates no money and the government has to raise taxes to cover what they used to get?
So, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, and not to be inward looking!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, and not to have over-reaching authority!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, and to actively pursue overseas markets!
No, you need Guns, Germs, and Steel, not to be inward looking, not to have over-reaching authority, to actively pursue overseas markets, and to have the advantage of geography that encourages separatism rather than centralism!
...
Bruce Perens.
Such a large volume seems impossible, but think about it: a shield volcano, made of lava that comes out as runny as syrup, spreading a long distance laterally for each increment of height.
And it's 11,200 m high. That's 33,000 ft. The Big Island is the tip of it that we see above water.
Correction: 10,200 m