Next range over has Kitt Peak Observatory, which is ugly and destroys the natural mountain's ridge line.
When I saw the telescopes on Maunakea a while back I didn't think that at all. It took nothing away from the beauty of the Mauna. If all you can focus on are percived flaws, and not the beauty of the whole, maybe you're the one with the problem. At any rate, good thing we live in a society where aesthetics and legality are separate.
Just say no to earth-bound observatories. Put 'em in space. I bet the scientists would like that too.
I'm sure they would. Do you have any idea at all how insanely much that would cost? The Hubble Space Telescope has a 2.4-meter mirror and cost $10 billion. This one is has a 30 meter mirror. Do the math.
It's not just about money; it's largely about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. There are people who believe that the State of Hawai'i is not a US state, but rather an occupied kingdom, and that the islands should become an independent Kingdom of Hawai'i again. They are using this to draw attention to themselves. Not that holding science hostage for the petty power struggles and race based nationalism make makes it any better, in fact, I would find it less distasteful to deal with appeals to religion or demands for payouts, but there it is.
The beauty of this whole thing is they picked a target which benefits all of humanity, one which they have no legal grounds whatsoever to block. So when they rightfully lose, the leaders get to point to their followers and claim Hawaiian voices are not heard and claim oppression.
I respect the beliefs of people, even if I myself do not hold them. For example, I will respect the Islamic principle of abstaining from alcohol, even if I myself do not hold that view. However, if someone tries to stop me from drinking a beer on that basis, then we have a problem.
Some people feel that the Mauna is sacred, and you know what, I agree with them. It is a sacred place, and it should be treated with respect. However, it does not follow that building this telescope, which has been positioned with just that point of view in mind, is desecration, or that the blocking of the telescope is justified. I understand the sacredness aspect, and while people should be mindful of history and culture and the environment, that just isn't sufficient justification for what we're seeing.
They are fighting for their land, sovereignty, and culture.
Their land? I was unaware that land could be racially owned, I'm sure that xenophobic nutjobs around the world will be overjoyed to hear that. I have French genetics in me; does that mean I can tell a Frenchman of Nigerian descent what they can and can't do with 'my' land because he is not of the native ethnicity?
And sovereignty? Sovereignty is derived form the will of the people, not genetic happenstance. If people want to claim that Hawai'i should declare independence, they're free to do it. I don't see that though, I see a push for race based nationalism, and that's always a bad thing.
It's all being stripped from them day in and day out. Not 500 years ago, still today.
Bad shit happened in the past, and that was wrong, but you know what? Two wrongs don't make a right. The villains and victims are dead. And even if we do accept that point of view, what the hell does that have to do with a telescope? And furthermore who, exactly, is going around stealing the land of Hawaiian people and preventing people from freely expressing Hawaiian culture? Because you should report them to the police.
No, GE crop labeling has failed, and rightfully so. Labels on patented crops were never an issue. Many non-GE crops are also patented. If you don't like them, don't grow them. If you want no interaction of any sort with anything patented, well, good luck with that. Even the non-GMO organic grown with patented stuff from John Deere.
The first sentence says exactly what I already said, which is how inserts overcoming the crop's resistance can lead to an erosion of already provided benefits, which is quite a well documented and easily explained phenomenon. That is very different than the claim that GE crops lead to more insecticide use.
Eventually it will be a bit difficult to avoid the altered genes.
Well, kind of. All genes do that in an outcrossing species (a crop that pollinates others readily, like corn or squash). In a natural population, selection pressure will influence the spread of the gene throughout the population, however, crops are not a natural population. For example, I have seed of blue, red, white, and yellow corn, and seed of all sorts of heirloom squash (orange and lumpy, bright red and smooth, pale and long). How is it possible that each of those still manages to exist, if genes inevitably spread throughout the population? Simple, controlled crossing. Genes inserted though biotechnology are no different. If you are preserving a population of, say, heirloom crops, you don't want any crossing anyway, and if you are simply buying hybrid seed every year, which many farmers do, it doesn't matter what they get crossed with.
but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.
That is a misconception. They do not have to withstand 'big doses' of the herbicide; do you honestly think that farmers are spending extra money on seed so they can spend extra money on herbicide? The gene inserted is an alternate form of an enzyme found in all plants; the amount you need to spray is not a 'big dose' but rather enough to kill the weed.
That's arguably an irresponsible use of GMO.
Fair enough, I suppose you have a better method of weed control then? Your options, realistically, are tillage (very damaging to soil health), hand weeding (completely unfeasible), or harsher herbicides. Not good options, but that's what we've got, and if you're going to criticize crops resistant to glyphosate, which is one of the better herbicides out there, you are going to need a viable alternative; this is not a case of herbicide resistant crops versus nothing, it is a case of them or something else.
Certainly it makes Roundup a short lived herbicide, as plants develop resistance to it. And they will.
Well, yes, just like weeds developed resistance to other types of herbicides. This does not mean you don't use them, it means we need to use them better to mitigate resistance by using multiple modes of action instead of over-relying on one mode of action (EPSPS inhibitors in the case of Round-Up). Additionally, conventional breeding is also used to make herbicide resistant crops; are you going to criticize conventional breeding as well?
No one says when hessian fly resistance genes in wheat are overcome by the pest, or when late blight genes in tomato fail (both being non-GE), that it means conventional breeding is of questionable benefit. But when the GE crops have the same problems non-GE crops do, then suddenly they're of questionable benefit? The problem is people don't know how much they don't know, and rather than assuming maybe there's a reason plant scientists aren't in revolt against genetic engineering, they assume they've got the whole story. Fact is, this is basic population genetics, you apply selection pressure to a large fast reproducing population like pests, weeds, or pathogens, you risk genetic shifts which might not be what we as humans want, and nature really doesn't care if that pressure is coming from breeding, genetic engineering, chemical controls, or what. You are using a universal problem as an argument against a specific thing.
Yep. People oppose the various big company made ones, claiming they don't like big companies. But then they'll also oppose things like the Arctic Apple (developed by a small company), the Rainbow papaya (developed by the University of Hawai'i), Golden Rice (developed by non-profit International Rice Research Institute), and Honeysweet plum (developed by the USDA), among plenty of other examples. Many will oppose university, NGO, and government developed GE crops, then say it's just about Monsanto...not buying that. Even this wheat in question was publicly funded and developed by Rothamsted Research,and what happened? This group called Take the Flour Back wanted to destroy it, which is better than what happened to CSIRO's publicly funded GE wheat research in Australia, where some book burners from Greenpeace successfully did destroy the research. All that aside, there are plenty of patented non-GE plants which vary rarely encounter controversy. The only consistent thing that gets controversy it genetic engineering, not public or private, patented or not. This controversy is not about patents, or quite bluntly any of the other common excuses for opposition to genetic engineering for that matter.
If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. You use the things that were not built on patent royalties, let others pay extra for the things that were, and in 20 years, they're both the same anyway when the patent expires. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work, you develop something, recoup your costs (and heaven forbid make a profit), hopefully reinvest into new innovation, then eventually the thing falls to the public? What's wrong with that system? This isn't copyright's 'life of the universe plus 10 years' schtick.
Rather they stole them
Oh, did they download a car? What was stolen, from whom, by who, and how?
And furthermore, I like how no one ever brings this up when conventional breeding is mentioned...no one ever opposes Honeycrisp, for example, which was once patented (since expired). No one ever says 'Ah, those damned greedy apple breeders, trying to keep their apple breeding program well funded so they can go on to develop new awesome varieties like SnowSweet that otherwise might not even exist!' That alone tells me this has more to do with justifying opposition to genetic engineering than any legitimate gripe with plant patents.
After cursory glance at that, it seems neither of the graphs in the EWG thing you linked to even mention GE. More widely accepted publications tend to sayotherwise, depending on the situation.
I also like the part where no one ever explains how insect resistance is supposed to increase insecticide use, but only when that resistance is transgenic. No one would ever argue against conventionally bred resistances, and somehow, once genetic engineering is involved, then the genetic component of integrated pest management (which is to say, select varieties and/or species resistant to your local insect populations as a first line of defense against them, as opposed to chemical controls later) is suddenly a bad thing.
I do love that they mentioned the insects that have overcome the transgenic defenses. Typical anti-GE nonsense: deny the crops help pest problems, meanwhile say the crop resistances are creating selection pressure for resistance overcoming insects (which shows they slept through population genetics), then deny there are benefits, meanwhile say that the resistant pests are a huge problem. I mean, yeah they genuinely are a problem, but because they threaten the benefits we've already gotten.
You're not the only one to notice that; I've seen that too. I've seen some protests here on O'ahu but never been to any, and I certainty don't care to, but I've noticed that there is a large overlap between the two groups. For example, one of the well known activists who wants all the telescopes gone is the same one who played a big role in the banning of genetically engineered taro research and presently supports the anti-GMO groups. IMO, there's a lot of projecting and two minutes of hate tactics to advance the agendas and careers of certain professional activists (and the sovereignty movement) at any cost, at least at the top level anyway, no doubt there must be those who are honest but uninformed, and maybe a small number of people who would still care for their own reasons even if there wasn't a popular bandwagon to jump on. It's kind of ironic considering that UH developed the genetically engineered papaya...the proof that genetic engineering works and evidence that it is not a corporate conspiracy is literally in the local market.
There's plenty in Hawaiian culture worthy of recognition. To say there is no Hawaiian art is just ignorant and wrong, and it is certainty very much alive. Do not mistake the protestors for all of Hawaiian culture, in which there is nothing which that would suggest there is anything wrong with telescopes on Maunakea.
Which is why people took issue with the other telescopes not paying rent yeah? Don't pay rent and you're freeloading; pay rent and you're offering 'bribe' money. Funny how spin can set things up for a no win situation.
but rather self rule.
Yes, this is true, people should realize that race based Hawaiian nationalism has been a factor in this whole thing. Not like that makes things any better though. If you want to put forward the idea of seceding into an independent nation, then you must derive sovereignty from the will of the people, not genetic happenstance. Holding science which benefits the whole of humanity hostage to promote a power grab makes things no better than 'saving Wakea' or whatever religious justification you care to use, in fact, I'd have much more respect for the appeal to religion. There's a long list of regressive assholes out there who think race should be an important factor in nationalism; do I really need to explain why they're wrong?
It's about Hawaiians being held at gunpoint to sign over sovereignty.
Who's being held at gunpoint? Haven't seen that on the news. Unless you're implying something absurd like society should be tied to century old wrongs, in which case, once I'll gotten my 23 and Me ancestry results I'll have a nice long list of people I've never met to demand compensation from. Everyone from a century ago is dead, villains and victims alike. Helping those in need is one thing; demanding special treatment and unique consideration as birthright is something totally different. So, who is being forced to do things against their will now, today?
It's about Kaho'olawe being blown to bits for decades.
Astronomers were doing that? Fascinating, do tell. That's a inane thing to say and you know it. Yeah, bad stuff happened in the past, no one is denying that, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to promote a thing, do it, be honest, say exactly what you mean, and let it succeed or fail based on its own merit. Attacking something else, making them out to be a villain they're not, in an effort to rally people around you with some us vs them nonsense...well, that's some bullshit politics and everyone knows it.
And the thing that really gets me about all this, is the protestors picked a just target. They decided to attack something they can't legally beat, so when they lose, they can cry oppression or some such nonsense.
Solution: institute class based affirmative action. Affirmative action was instituted in an age after terrible racial discrimination. I disagree with it happening now, but it was a good idea then. How do you help the unfairly disadvantaged without race based policies? Base it on something that makes clear and profound differences in one's opportunities.
Though considering that universities like Harvard actually have legacy policies (aka affirmative action for the rich) I don't expect this anytime soon. Personally, I think there should be an academic boycott of any institute with such regressive policies.
This isn't about the US owning anything; it is about private ownership of something. If a company does make it into space, say to some asteroid or something, and you're telling them what they can and can't do while they're there (like claim mineral rights and mine it), who is trying to own the universe then? The way I see it, if someone can make space exploration profitable, that's great! If you're going to piss & moan about someone making property claims & making money while advancing humanity then I think you're the one with the problem. I don't care how we get to space, as long as it happens. Squabbling over money and ownership does not advance humanity; getting out there does. If this whole thing ever becomes an actual issue, then it means something wonderful is happening.
Bollocks. Religious freedom exists within the bounds of the law, not outside it. It means no one can tell you that you can't do something otherwise legal for religious reasons, not that you get a free pass on illegal activities. You want to pray before meals, preach a certain thing, dress a particular way, wear a religious symbol around your neck, pass out books on the street, cool, that's freedom of religion, and that is part of living in a free society. You want to willingly put your children at risk of potentially fatal diseases (otherwise known as child neglect) then call it freedom of religion, nope, that's not ever remotely similar and that's not what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion is not a pass to do whatever you want and then call it oppression when someone tries to hold you accountable.
If you want to do stupid things to yourself, that's fine. I'll be the first to complain about liberty and government overstep when laws are passed to protect people from themselves. You want to do something stupid that might result in your own demise, as long as you're not taking anyone else down with you, then have at it. It's none of my concern. However, this is not about what you do to yourself, it is about what you do to others. Child neglect is not a right, and you don't get to put your kids and other kids at risk and then shout 'But religion!' when you are expected to act like a mature reasonable decent human being and demand that the rest of the world respect your excuses as to why you put your kid at risk of easily preventable and potentially serious disease.
The TMT people do want the support of the community. They have gone far out of their way to do so, to invest in local education, to invest in cultural affairs, to be respectful of cultural and environmental concerns, ect. The protesters conveniently ignore how much they have done, and misinformation and rumors can be found all over social media.
Throw some Thai curry on top of it, taro and coconut go great together. Or just mix it up into some kulolo. I really can't see the whole 'tastes like paste' thing, but that's just my opinion. It's just like any other staple foodstuff, the flavor is somewhat mild so as to complement that which it is served with. That's a feature, not a bug. Now, pa'i'ai, if that was served up more, I'll bet that'd be a much more popular way of serving taro. Pa'i'ai kicks ass.
They were there because the Hawaiian Studies faculty told their students to go.
And could you just imagine the outrage if a science department told their students to go to a counter-protest.
That could be part of it. Anyone following the project knows that these protests have been going on for a while at low levels, but didn't really kick up until last month at about exactly the same time as when Canada chipped in $240 million.
There is another part though; the Hawaiian sovereignty issue. Of course, that's a bullshit line of reasoning in a lot of ways (as I discuss here). Is this a shakedown for money by activist leaders or way of inciting anger for their own political gains? Probably both, though the latter seems to be more of a clear goal. Then again, if its the former, that's not something one would openly admit.
Those are all good points, but the sovereignty activists don't care. Each of them envisions themselves the new king or queen; this is about petty attempts at grabbing power, nothing more. They really don't care if they are wrong about the telescope as long as it gives them something to rally around (Hawai'i resident here; I have actually heard this said by an anti-TMT activist).
They don't want the economic or educational benefits the telescope would bring; poor and uneducated are good for the leaders. They want racial discontent more than then want tolerance; perceptions of persecution are good for the leaders. You can point out to these activist leaders out that Hawaiian sovereignty is an inherently racist idea (it's no better than the scumbag white nationalist groups, not in my book; all race based nationalism is immoral bronze age bullshit). You can point out that everyone born in Hawai'i is an American citizen equal under the law. You can point out the economic problems that would occur the instant Hawai'i left the US, if that were to happen, and that life for their supporters would become much harder. They do not care, and they don't care if Hawai'i goes to shit, as long as they are the rulers of shit mountain.
That's what this is really about. They want people poor, uneducated, angry, and easy to manipulate for their own benefit. None of the benefits the TMT would provide to Hawai'i County's public education system (like the high school robotics program they fund) and economy? That's great to them. They sure as hell don't want other people educating kids. And they do want people to say stupid shit like 'Hawaiians are anti-science' because it creates an us vs them environment (DO NOT SAY 'Hawaiians are anti-science' as some people have; that's racist and not true. Hawaiian does not equal anti-TMT activist). So we are not talking about a benevolent group here. Keep in mind, every year people do off road racing and snow boarding and other things on Maunakea, and leave all sorts of garbage, and no one cares about that. The Mauna is only sacred in so far as a political point can be made, in other words, they don't really give two shits about mountain or the telescope or the supposed sacredness, only what they can gain from it. Or course, if they really cared, they wouldn't be doing shit like introducing invasive ants.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that if they were really all about ancient Hawaiian traditions, they would realize that there was nothing prohibiting building things on Maunakea and that ancient Hawaiians were active stargazers. There is nothing at all suggesting that this would be offensive. The protestors also seem to be ignoring the fact that their presence on the Mauna would, in contrast, be offense; only the ali'i and kahuna were allowed on the Mauna, not commoners like them (of course, in the modern State of Hawai'i, we are all equals and Maunakea is open to all; there are no castes of people). It's no different than the Christian groups that make up their religion as they go along and pick and choose what parts of the Bible they like in order to justify their current inane actions. It's just like a lot of stuff that seems anti-science on the outside; it's all about someone's power or wealth, you just have to find out who, and in this case it is the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
Hope that clear up some of the situation here. And the thing is, all of their legal, cultural, economic, scientific, and environmental arguments are complete fabricated bullshit. So whenever the telescope is built (because there is literally no good reason to block it) they are just going to use it as more 'proof' that they are being repressed, and that no one listens to or cares about Hawaiian voices (not
Well duh. It might have been packing a concealed laser in that pocket.
But really now, that's in TFA. It was collected and frozen five years ago as part of a study on sperm whale food, and was only later found among the frozen catch. So yeah, it's dead and people killed it, and that really sucks, but it wasn't intentionally and specifically targeted to be killed.
Slashdot Mirror
Next range over has Kitt Peak Observatory, which is ugly and destroys the natural mountain's ridge line.
When I saw the telescopes on Maunakea a while back I didn't think that at all. It took nothing away from the beauty of the Mauna. If all you can focus on are percived flaws, and not the beauty of the whole, maybe you're the one with the problem. At any rate, good thing we live in a society where aesthetics and legality are separate.
Just say no to earth-bound observatories. Put 'em in space. I bet the scientists would like that too.
I'm sure they would. Do you have any idea at all how insanely much that would cost? The Hubble Space Telescope has a 2.4-meter mirror and cost $10 billion. This one is has a 30 meter mirror. Do the math.
These are the same people who cared so little they brought invasive ants up with them; I can't say disturbing the site surprises me.
It's not just about money; it's largely about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. There are people who believe that the State of Hawai'i is not a US state, but rather an occupied kingdom, and that the islands should become an independent Kingdom of Hawai'i again. They are using this to draw attention to themselves. Not that holding science hostage for the petty power struggles and race based nationalism make makes it any better, in fact, I would find it less distasteful to deal with appeals to religion or demands for payouts, but there it is.
The beauty of this whole thing is they picked a target which benefits all of humanity, one which they have no legal grounds whatsoever to block. So when they rightfully lose, the leaders get to point to their followers and claim Hawaiian voices are not heard and claim oppression.
I respect the beliefs of people, even if I myself do not hold them. For example, I will respect the Islamic principle of abstaining from alcohol, even if I myself do not hold that view. However, if someone tries to stop me from drinking a beer on that basis, then we have a problem.
Some people feel that the Mauna is sacred, and you know what, I agree with them. It is a sacred place, and it should be treated with respect. However, it does not follow that building this telescope, which has been positioned with just that point of view in mind, is desecration, or that the blocking of the telescope is justified. I understand the sacredness aspect, and while people should be mindful of history and culture and the environment, that just isn't sufficient justification for what we're seeing.
They are fighting for their land, sovereignty, and culture.
Their land? I was unaware that land could be racially owned, I'm sure that xenophobic nutjobs around the world will be overjoyed to hear that. I have French genetics in me; does that mean I can tell a Frenchman of Nigerian descent what they can and can't do with 'my' land because he is not of the native ethnicity?
And sovereignty? Sovereignty is derived form the will of the people, not genetic happenstance. If people want to claim that Hawai'i should declare independence, they're free to do it. I don't see that though, I see a push for race based nationalism, and that's always a bad thing.
It's all being stripped from them day in and day out. Not 500 years ago, still today.
Bad shit happened in the past, and that was wrong, but you know what? Two wrongs don't make a right. The villains and victims are dead. And even if we do accept that point of view, what the hell does that have to do with a telescope? And furthermore who, exactly, is going around stealing the land of Hawaiian people and preventing people from freely expressing Hawaiian culture? Because you should report them to the police.
No, GE crop labeling has failed, and rightfully so. Labels on patented crops were never an issue. Many non-GE crops are also patented. If you don't like them, don't grow them. If you want no interaction of any sort with anything patented, well, good luck with that. Even the non-GMO organic grown with patented stuff from John Deere.
The first sentence says exactly what I already said, which is how inserts overcoming the crop's resistance can lead to an erosion of already provided benefits, which is quite a well documented and easily explained phenomenon. That is very different than the claim that GE crops lead to more insecticide use.
Eventually it will be a bit difficult to avoid the altered genes.
Well, kind of. All genes do that in an outcrossing species (a crop that pollinates others readily, like corn or squash). In a natural population, selection pressure will influence the spread of the gene throughout the population, however, crops are not a natural population. For example, I have seed of blue, red, white, and yellow corn, and seed of all sorts of heirloom squash (orange and lumpy, bright red and smooth, pale and long). How is it possible that each of those still manages to exist, if genes inevitably spread throughout the population? Simple, controlled crossing. Genes inserted though biotechnology are no different. If you are preserving a population of, say, heirloom crops, you don't want any crossing anyway, and if you are simply buying hybrid seed every year, which many farmers do, it doesn't matter what they get crossed with.
but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.
That is a misconception. They do not have to withstand 'big doses' of the herbicide; do you honestly think that farmers are spending extra money on seed so they can spend extra money on herbicide? The gene inserted is an alternate form of an enzyme found in all plants; the amount you need to spray is not a 'big dose' but rather enough to kill the weed.
That's arguably an irresponsible use of GMO.
Fair enough, I suppose you have a better method of weed control then? Your options, realistically, are tillage (very damaging to soil health), hand weeding (completely unfeasible), or harsher herbicides. Not good options, but that's what we've got, and if you're going to criticize crops resistant to glyphosate, which is one of the better herbicides out there, you are going to need a viable alternative; this is not a case of herbicide resistant crops versus nothing, it is a case of them or something else.
Certainly it makes Roundup a short lived herbicide, as plants develop resistance to it. And they will.
Well, yes, just like weeds developed resistance to other types of herbicides. This does not mean you don't use them, it means we need to use them better to mitigate resistance by using multiple modes of action instead of over-relying on one mode of action (EPSPS inhibitors in the case of Round-Up). Additionally, conventional breeding is also used to make herbicide resistant crops; are you going to criticize conventional breeding as well?
No one says when hessian fly resistance genes in wheat are overcome by the pest, or when late blight genes in tomato fail (both being non-GE), that it means conventional breeding is of questionable benefit. But when the GE crops have the same problems non-GE crops do, then suddenly they're of questionable benefit? The problem is people don't know how much they don't know, and rather than assuming maybe there's a reason plant scientists aren't in revolt against genetic engineering, they assume they've got the whole story. Fact is, this is basic population genetics, you apply selection pressure to a large fast reproducing population like pests, weeds, or pathogens, you risk genetic shifts which might not be what we as humans want, and nature really doesn't care if that pressure is coming from breeding, genetic engineering, chemical controls, or what. You are using a universal problem as an argument against a specific thing.
Yep. People oppose the various big company made ones, claiming they don't like big companies. But then they'll also oppose things like the Arctic Apple (developed by a small company), the Rainbow papaya (developed by the University of Hawai'i), Golden Rice (developed by non-profit International Rice Research Institute), and Honeysweet plum (developed by the USDA), among plenty of other examples. Many will oppose university, NGO, and government developed GE crops, then say it's just about Monsanto...not buying that. Even this wheat in question was publicly funded and developed by Rothamsted Research,and what happened? This group called Take the Flour Back wanted to destroy it, which is better than what happened to CSIRO's publicly funded GE wheat research in Australia, where some book burners from Greenpeace successfully did destroy the research. All that aside, there are plenty of patented non-GE plants which vary rarely encounter controversy. The only consistent thing that gets controversy it genetic engineering, not public or private, patented or not. This controversy is not about patents, or quite bluntly any of the other common excuses for opposition to genetic engineering for that matter.
If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. You use the things that were not built on patent royalties, let others pay extra for the things that were, and in 20 years, they're both the same anyway when the patent expires. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work, you develop something, recoup your costs (and heaven forbid make a profit), hopefully reinvest into new innovation, then eventually the thing falls to the public? What's wrong with that system? This isn't copyright's 'life of the universe plus 10 years' schtick.
Rather they stole them
Oh, did they download a car? What was stolen, from whom, by who, and how?
And furthermore, I like how no one ever brings this up when conventional breeding is mentioned...no one ever opposes Honeycrisp, for example, which was once patented (since expired). No one ever says 'Ah, those damned greedy apple breeders, trying to keep their apple breeding program well funded so they can go on to develop new awesome varieties like SnowSweet that otherwise might not even exist!' That alone tells me this has more to do with justifying opposition to genetic engineering than any legitimate gripe with plant patents.
After cursory glance at that, it seems neither of the graphs in the EWG thing you linked to even mention GE. More widely accepted publications tend to say otherwise, depending on the situation.
I also like the part where no one ever explains how insect resistance is supposed to increase insecticide use, but only when that resistance is transgenic. No one would ever argue against conventionally bred resistances, and somehow, once genetic engineering is involved, then the genetic component of integrated pest management (which is to say, select varieties and/or species resistant to your local insect populations as a first line of defense against them, as opposed to chemical controls later) is suddenly a bad thing.
I do love that they mentioned the insects that have overcome the transgenic defenses. Typical anti-GE nonsense: deny the crops help pest problems, meanwhile say the crop resistances are creating selection pressure for resistance overcoming insects (which shows they slept through population genetics), then deny there are benefits, meanwhile say that the resistant pests are a huge problem. I mean, yeah they genuinely are a problem, but because they threaten the benefits we've already gotten.
You're not the only one to notice that; I've seen that too. I've seen some protests here on O'ahu but never been to any, and I certainty don't care to, but I've noticed that there is a large overlap between the two groups. For example, one of the well known activists who wants all the telescopes gone is the same one who played a big role in the banning of genetically engineered taro research and presently supports the anti-GMO groups. IMO, there's a lot of projecting and two minutes of hate tactics to advance the agendas and careers of certain professional activists (and the sovereignty movement) at any cost, at least at the top level anyway, no doubt there must be those who are honest but uninformed, and maybe a small number of people who would still care for their own reasons even if there wasn't a popular bandwagon to jump on. It's kind of ironic considering that UH developed the genetically engineered papaya...the proof that genetic engineering works and evidence that it is not a corporate conspiracy is literally in the local market.
There's plenty in Hawaiian culture worthy of recognition. To say there is no Hawaiian art is just ignorant and wrong, and it is certainty very much alive. Do not mistake the protestors for all of Hawaiian culture, in which there is nothing which that would suggest there is anything wrong with telescopes on Maunakea.
This has nothing to do with money
Which is why people took issue with the other telescopes not paying rent yeah? Don't pay rent and you're freeloading; pay rent and you're offering 'bribe' money. Funny how spin can set things up for a no win situation.
but rather self rule.
Yes, this is true, people should realize that race based Hawaiian nationalism has been a factor in this whole thing. Not like that makes things any better though. If you want to put forward the idea of seceding into an independent nation, then you must derive sovereignty from the will of the people, not genetic happenstance. Holding science which benefits the whole of humanity hostage to promote a power grab makes things no better than 'saving Wakea' or whatever religious justification you care to use, in fact, I'd have much more respect for the appeal to religion. There's a long list of regressive assholes out there who think race should be an important factor in nationalism; do I really need to explain why they're wrong?
It's about Hawaiians being held at gunpoint to sign over sovereignty.
Who's being held at gunpoint? Haven't seen that on the news. Unless you're implying something absurd like society should be tied to century old wrongs, in which case, once I'll gotten my 23 and Me ancestry results I'll have a nice long list of people I've never met to demand compensation from. Everyone from a century ago is dead, villains and victims alike. Helping those in need is one thing; demanding special treatment and unique consideration as birthright is something totally different. So, who is being forced to do things against their will now, today?
It's about Kaho'olawe being blown to bits for decades.
Astronomers were doing that? Fascinating, do tell. That's a inane thing to say and you know it. Yeah, bad stuff happened in the past, no one is denying that, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you want to promote a thing, do it, be honest, say exactly what you mean, and let it succeed or fail based on its own merit. Attacking something else, making them out to be a villain they're not, in an effort to rally people around you with some us vs them nonsense...well, that's some bullshit politics and everyone knows it.
And the thing that really gets me about all this, is the protestors picked a just target. They decided to attack something they can't legally beat, so when they lose, they can cry oppression or some such nonsense.
Wilma!
Solution: institute class based affirmative action. Affirmative action was instituted in an age after terrible racial discrimination. I disagree with it happening now, but it was a good idea then. How do you help the unfairly disadvantaged without race based policies? Base it on something that makes clear and profound differences in one's opportunities.
Though considering that universities like Harvard actually have legacy policies (aka affirmative action for the rich) I don't expect this anytime soon. Personally, I think there should be an academic boycott of any institute with such regressive policies.
This isn't about the US owning anything; it is about private ownership of something. If a company does make it into space, say to some asteroid or something, and you're telling them what they can and can't do while they're there (like claim mineral rights and mine it), who is trying to own the universe then? The way I see it, if someone can make space exploration profitable, that's great! If you're going to piss & moan about someone making property claims & making money while advancing humanity then I think you're the one with the problem. I don't care how we get to space, as long as it happens. Squabbling over money and ownership does not advance humanity; getting out there does. If this whole thing ever becomes an actual issue, then it means something wonderful is happening.
Bollocks. Religious freedom exists within the bounds of the law, not outside it. It means no one can tell you that you can't do something otherwise legal for religious reasons, not that you get a free pass on illegal activities. You want to pray before meals, preach a certain thing, dress a particular way, wear a religious symbol around your neck, pass out books on the street, cool, that's freedom of religion, and that is part of living in a free society. You want to willingly put your children at risk of potentially fatal diseases (otherwise known as child neglect) then call it freedom of religion, nope, that's not ever remotely similar and that's not what freedom of religion means. Freedom of religion is not a pass to do whatever you want and then call it oppression when someone tries to hold you accountable.
If you want to do stupid things to yourself, that's fine. I'll be the first to complain about liberty and government overstep when laws are passed to protect people from themselves. You want to do something stupid that might result in your own demise, as long as you're not taking anyone else down with you, then have at it. It's none of my concern. However, this is not about what you do to yourself, it is about what you do to others. Child neglect is not a right, and you don't get to put your kids and other kids at risk and then shout 'But religion!' when you are expected to act like a mature reasonable decent human being and demand that the rest of the world respect your excuses as to why you put your kid at risk of easily preventable and potentially serious disease.
I'll let measles be the judge of that.
The TMT people do want the support of the community. They have gone far out of their way to do so, to invest in local education, to invest in cultural affairs, to be respectful of cultural and environmental concerns, ect. The protesters conveniently ignore how much they have done, and misinformation and rumors can be found all over social media.
Poi is, um, an acquired taste.
Throw some Thai curry on top of it, taro and coconut go great together. Or just mix it up into some kulolo. I really can't see the whole 'tastes like paste' thing, but that's just my opinion. It's just like any other staple foodstuff, the flavor is somewhat mild so as to complement that which it is served with. That's a feature, not a bug. Now, pa'i'ai, if that was served up more, I'll bet that'd be a much more popular way of serving taro. Pa'i'ai kicks ass.
They were there because the Hawaiian Studies faculty told their students to go.
And could you just imagine the outrage if a science department told their students to go to a counter-protest.
That could be part of it. Anyone following the project knows that these protests have been going on for a while at low levels, but didn't really kick up until last month at about exactly the same time as when Canada chipped in $240 million.
There is another part though; the Hawaiian sovereignty issue. Of course, that's a bullshit line of reasoning in a lot of ways (as I discuss here). Is this a shakedown for money by activist leaders or way of inciting anger for their own political gains? Probably both, though the latter seems to be more of a clear goal. Then again, if its the former, that's not something one would openly admit.
Those are all good points, but the sovereignty activists don't care. Each of them envisions themselves the new king or queen; this is about petty attempts at grabbing power, nothing more. They really don't care if they are wrong about the telescope as long as it gives them something to rally around (Hawai'i resident here; I have actually heard this said by an anti-TMT activist).
They don't want the economic or educational benefits the telescope would bring; poor and uneducated are good for the leaders. They want racial discontent more than then want tolerance; perceptions of persecution are good for the leaders. You can point out to these activist leaders out that Hawaiian sovereignty is an inherently racist idea (it's no better than the scumbag white nationalist groups, not in my book; all race based nationalism is immoral bronze age bullshit). You can point out that everyone born in Hawai'i is an American citizen equal under the law. You can point out the economic problems that would occur the instant Hawai'i left the US, if that were to happen, and that life for their supporters would become much harder. They do not care, and they don't care if Hawai'i goes to shit, as long as they are the rulers of shit mountain.
That's what this is really about. They want people poor, uneducated, angry, and easy to manipulate for their own benefit. None of the benefits the TMT would provide to Hawai'i County's public education system (like the high school robotics program they fund) and economy? That's great to them. They sure as hell don't want other people educating kids. And they do want people to say stupid shit like 'Hawaiians are anti-science' because it creates an us vs them environment (DO NOT SAY 'Hawaiians are anti-science' as some people have; that's racist and not true. Hawaiian does not equal anti-TMT activist). So we are not talking about a benevolent group here. Keep in mind, every year people do off road racing and snow boarding and other things on Maunakea, and leave all sorts of garbage, and no one cares about that. The Mauna is only sacred in so far as a political point can be made, in other words, they don't really give two shits about mountain or the telescope or the supposed sacredness, only what they can gain from it. Or course, if they really cared, they wouldn't be doing shit like introducing invasive ants.
Additionally, I'd like to point out that if they were really all about ancient Hawaiian traditions, they would realize that there was nothing prohibiting building things on Maunakea and that ancient Hawaiians were active stargazers. There is nothing at all suggesting that this would be offensive. The protestors also seem to be ignoring the fact that their presence on the Mauna would, in contrast, be offense; only the ali'i and kahuna were allowed on the Mauna, not commoners like them (of course, in the modern State of Hawai'i, we are all equals and Maunakea is open to all; there are no castes of people). It's no different than the Christian groups that make up their religion as they go along and pick and choose what parts of the Bible they like in order to justify their current inane actions. It's just like a lot of stuff that seems anti-science on the outside; it's all about someone's power or wealth, you just have to find out who, and in this case it is the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.
Hope that clear up some of the situation here. And the thing is, all of their legal, cultural, economic, scientific, and environmental arguments are complete fabricated bullshit. So whenever the telescope is built (because there is literally no good reason to block it) they are just going to use it as more 'proof' that they are being repressed, and that no one listens to or cares about Hawaiian voices (not
Well duh. It might have been packing a concealed laser in that pocket.
But really now, that's in TFA. It was collected and frozen five years ago as part of a study on sperm whale food, and was only later found among the frozen catch. So yeah, it's dead and people killed it, and that really sucks, but it wasn't intentionally and specifically targeted to be killed.