The Thirty Meter Telescope - construction will begin

[lpetrich]

 Thirty Meter Telescope
Update: Hawaii governor says construction of controversial giant telescope will begin soon | Science | AAAS
TMT International Observatory
Thirty Meter Telescope Set to Begin Construction - Sky & Telescope

Its name refers to the diameter of its primary mirror. Like other large-telescope mirrors, it will be segmented. It will have 492 segment mirrors, each one hexagonal and 1.44 meters across.

This telescope provoked a strange kind of NIMBY objection. Certain people objected that its construction would be sacrilege, that it would desecrate Native Hawaiian sacred sites. These people did a lot of litigation to stop the project, but it looks like it has been resolved and that the project will continue. The TMT had a backup site in case Hawaii proved intractable: the Canary Islands.

I find that objection very odd, since it would seem to be a great honor to have a large telescope on the mountain's peak. It's not like it's a resort that caters to annoying rich jerks with a raging sense of entitlement.

 

[skepticalbip]

But then again, you never know. Maybe they feared that all the construction would inconvenience those "annoying rich jerks with a raging sense of entitlement" that like to ski Mauna Kea.

 

[steve_bank]

I sure hope they get the testing right this time....

 

[lpetrich]

Hundreds Of Protesters Refuse To Budge On Eve Of Hawaii Telescope Project Launch : NPR - they are still not giving up.

 

[Politesse]

No, they are not giving up, nor should they. I'd be up there with them myself if I were on the islands right now.


They were never consulted to begin with. You want someone to believe that it is a "great honor" to have your crap built on land they supposedly have joint authority over, maybe ask first. Not after. Moving in with guns and forcibly taking something is not good PR. If there had been a good faith attempt from the start - where the start is the illegal seizure of the islands by the US at the behest of a megacorporation - this whole thing would never have become the fiasco it has become. Pleading ignorance of politics is not a suitable answer if you're all too willing to exert that political power over those who have been disenfranchised by that political history.

 

[lpetrich]

Annoying rich jerks with a raging sense of entitlement get away with being annoying by having a heck of a lot of money to spend. The builders of the TMT don't have nearly as much money for such purposes, it seems.

 

[Politesse]

Annoying rich jerks with a raging sense of entitlement get away with being annoying by having a heck of a lot of money to spend. The builders of the TMT don't have nearly as much money for such purposes, it seems.

But they do have the coercive power of the state behind them. Many of these protesters are going to end up behind bars. If this goes like things did in Dakota territory last year, many with grievous physical injuries. US policy on indigenous rights (that there should be none unless granted by self-defined forms of noblesse oblige) has never changed, but different parties take advantage of it at different times. Yesterday it was industrial agribusiness, the next day tourism, today the military-scientific wing.

 

[Politesse]

Also, the TMT has 1.4 Billion dollars behind it just in terms of direct investment, let alone the legal and police services they've been receiving from the US Government for free. If that's "far less" than the behemoth of the tourist industry (likely true) it also far more money than the Hawaiian people could possibly raise in defense of their lands.

 

[steve_bank]

And who said science can't be political, emotional, and downright irrational.

 

[skepticalbip]

And who said science can't be political, emotional, and downright irrational.

Maybe political and emotional but not irrational. Mauna Kea already has thirteen telescopes on its peak because that location is one of the best in the world for optical observations. To place the proposed telescope elsewhere would defeat its purpose by degrading its abilities. This proposed telescope will far surpass the abilities of those other thirteen on Mauna Kea.

 

[Politesse]

Trying to bypass the legal process, creating an expensive decade long fiasco and losing public sentiment by aiding in the suppression of a recently conquered people was rational? How?

 

[skepticalbip]

Trying to bypass the legal process, creating an expensive decade long fiasco and losing public sentiment by aiding in the suppression of a recently conquered people was rational? How?

King Kamehameha was the first to conquer all the other kings and subjugate the Hawaiians on all the islands of the archipelago. All world history is about one group conquering another group. If you want to read about brutal suppression then you need to read the history of the spread of warlike groups of Polynesians.

But then this has nothing to do with the rational reasoning for why Mauna Kea is an ideal site for a better telescope than the thirteen that are already there.

 

[bilby]

Religious significance is meaningless.

If the locals own the land, they get to say what happens there. If they don't, they don't.

It doesn't matter whether it's sacred; But it does matter whether it's theirs.

So, is it theirs?

We have a similar debate in Australia about tourism at Uluru (Ayers Rock). The owners don't want people to climb the rock. After years of just asking them to not climb it, they have had enough, and said 'no more'. Apparently this is controversial - but it shouldn't be. There's a great view from the roof of my garden shed. It's not a sacred shed, but if a bunch of tourists turned up demanding to be allowed to climb it, I would tell them to fuck off.

If these Hawaiian natives gave up ownership in a sale or treaty, then the mountain isn't theirs anymore, and they get no say. If they didn't, then it is theirs, and they get to say no for any reason (or no reason other than 'fuck off, it's my land').

So which is it?

 

[Politesse]

Religious significance is meaningless.

If the locals own the land, they get to say what happens there. If they don't, they don't.

It doesn't matter whether it's sacred; But it does matter whether it's theirs.

So, is it theirs?

We have a similar debate in Australia about tourism at Uluru (Ayers Rock). The owners don't want people to climb the rock. After years of just asking them to not climb it, they have had enough, and said 'no more'. Apparently this is controversial - but it shouldn't be. There's a great view from the roof of my garden shed. It's not a sacred shed, but if a bunch of tourists turned up demanding to be allowed to climb it, I would tell them to fuck off.

If these Hawaiian natives gave up ownership in a sale or treaty, then the mountain isn't theirs anymore, and they get no say. If they didn't, then it is theirs, and they get to say no for any reason (or no reason other than 'fuck off, it's my land').

So which is it?

Not only did the Hawaiian people never surrender their sovereignty or agree to a transfer of land (which in the case of Mauna Kea would have been a straight up heretical to consider), Congress actually passed a measure to acknowledge this and weakly apologized for the theft, in 1993. And by state law in cases of major building projects on government-owned land, Native Hawaiians are supposed to have a right to consultation and (unfortunately quite vaguely defined) shared governance. I note that the committee is not requesting the destruction of the eleven telescopes that are already there, just a moratorium on further construction, which by the tacit admission of astronomers otherwise will never stop as long as technology keeps advancing and there is still an acre or two to fill on top of the mountain.

 

[Politesse]

Trying to bypass the legal process, creating an expensive decade long fiasco and losing public sentiment by aiding in the suppression of a recently conquered people was rational? How?

King Kamehameha was the first to conquer all the other kings and subjugate the Hawaiians on all the islands of the archipelago. All world history is about one group conquering another group. If you want to read about brutal suppression then you need to read the history of the spread of warlike groups of Polynesians.

But then this has nothing to do with the rational reasoning for why Mauna Kea is an ideal site for a better telescope than the thirteen that are already there.

So if I decide that the pond in the backyard is an ideal place for studying salamanders, can I build a facility there without first purchasing it from you, which involves ripping up a fair chunk of the rest of your backyard as well? Why or why not? Shouldn't having a worthy scientific goal supersede your property rights, too?

 

[skepticalbip]

Trying to bypass the legal process, creating an expensive decade long fiasco and losing public sentiment by aiding in the suppression of a recently conquered people was rational? How?

King Kamehameha was the first to conquer all the other kings and subjugate the Hawaiians on all the islands of the archipelago. All world history is about one group conquering another group. If you want to read about brutal suppression then you need to read the history of the spread of warlike groups of Polynesians.

But then this has nothing to do with the rational reasoning for why Mauna Kea is an ideal site for a better telescope than the thirteen that are already there.

So if I decide that the pond in the backyard is an ideal place for studying salamanders, can I build a facility there without first purchasing it from you, which involves ripping up a fair chunk of the rest of your backyard as well? Why or why not? Shouldn't having a worthy scientific goal supersede your property rights, too?

If you and your army conquered the U.S. and imposed your own laws then, yes you would be able to do whatever the fuck you want.

 

[Politesse]

So if I decide that the pond in the backyard is an ideal place for studying salamanders, can I build a facility there without first purchasing it from you, which involves ripping up a fair chunk of the rest of your backyard as well? Why or why not? Shouldn't having a worthy scientific goal supersede your property rights, too?

If you and your army conquered the U.S. and imposed your own laws then, yes you would be able to do whatever the fuck you want.

So you are an unashamed apologist for imperialism. I appreciate the uncommon honesty, but the protestors still disagree with you.

Would you agree that the Hawaiians ought to be arming themselves, then, rather than peacefully protesting and pursuing legal solutions as they have been doing? If they want control of Mauna Kea and violence is the only legitimate means of acquiring it, then shouldn't they be preparing for war? Have they been mistaken in their approach this whole time?

 

[skepticalbip]

So if I decide that the pond in the backyard is an ideal place for studying salamanders, can I build a facility there without first purchasing it from you, which involves ripping up a fair chunk of the rest of your backyard as well? Why or why not? Shouldn't having a worthy scientific goal supersede your property rights, too?

If you and your army conquered the U.S. and imposed your own laws then, yes you would be able to do whatever the fuck you want.

So you are an unashamed apologist for imperialism. I appreciate the uncommon honesty, but the protestors still disagree with you.

I am not an apologist. I am a realist. I recognize how the world works and even when it works against what I consider "right", I know that the world doesn't really give a shit what I think should be. I am not enough of an egomaniac to believe that the world would care what I think.

ETA:
I see you added a second paragraph after I posted.

Would you agree that the Hawaiians ought to be arming themselves, then, rather than peacefully protesting and pursuing legal solutions as they have been doing? If they want control of Mauna Kea and violence is the only legitimate means of acquiring it, then shouldn't they be preparing for war? Have they been mistaken in their approach this whole time?

Only if they are complete idiots. Rational people tend to know when they have lost.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I am not an apologist. I am a realist. I recognize how the world works and even when it works against what I consider "right", I know that the world doesn't really give a shit what I think should be. I am not enough of an egomaniac to believe that the world would care what I think.

After 17,651 posts you've finally figured that out?

 

[Politesse]

So you are an unashamed apologist for imperialism. I appreciate the uncommon honesty, but the protestors still disagree with you.

I am not an apologist. I am a realist. I recognize how the world works and even when it works against what I consider "right", I know that the world doesn't really give a shit what I think should be. I am not enough of an egomaniac to believe that the world would care what I think.

Then be a realist about this, and acknowledge thst the protesters are not going to leave the mountain, and that no one gives a shit about the scientific merit of an act of political violence. Be a realist, and see that with every passing year indigenous peoples are less and less willing to accept subjugation by imperial power regimes. If scientists do not realize this, they will find themselves engaged in constant political struggles like this one, in lieu of having time to study any scientific subject.