Hawaii's indigenous culture has a interesting mix where racism against non-native races and prejudice against modern practices (like science) is the norm.
Would be good material for a traditionalist/modernist study.
The culture is uniquely xenophobic among American states, it's rather interesting really.
>>The mountain, however, is also a state-designated conservation district. Opponents of the project have contended that the planned telescope, which at 18 stories high would be the biggest building on the Big Island, represents industrial development and would violate the rules for such zones.
Since when does a research and education institution qualify as "industrial"? All over the US we have schools and universities smack in the middle of residential zones.
Since conservation areas and city zoning don't have the same goals and don't follow the same principles, e.g. when it comes to impact of construction. Note that this wasn't even the issue at hand, it seems like the court decision was mostly based on a technicality.
This site outlines the actions that tmt takes to improve Hawaii and science education in general... 300 jobs. 26 million per year in revenue. 1 million per year just in paying a lease, 800k of which is earmarked to pay for conservation of the mountain. The site was deliberately moved to a suboptimal location so that it would be less visible to people. Includes a statement regarding this HSC hearing.
I honestly don't see how telescopes are disrespectful to begin with. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, countless other ancient monoliths were astronomical temples... These are literally the temples of the one 'religion' all humanity shares-- the love of space and the stars.
Whatever. Good job random celebrities on twitter who have never even been to Mauna Kea; you've successfully done whatever this is. We will in fact “take [our] toys and play in another sandbox,” because some of us actually care about the past and future of humanity as a race and our place in the stars.
I don't understand. They haven't been denied a permit, they had the permit. Construction had begun. They were given the go ahead, handshook on a deal with the state of Hawaii-- giving way more than any telescope before. And now, they've been cut off in the middle of full scale production.
It's a bit of a sucker punch because, for eight years, survey planning, software programming, building design, etc. have been underway with this specific site in mind. There are hundreds of people working on this. Tens to hundreds of thousands of man hours are wasted if this decision stands. PhD work on "site predictions for TMT" "Error estimations for TMT" "Optic Performance for TMT" etc. etc. are worthless.
This isn't a back-yard telescope you just prop up anywhere. This is a precision instrument that was designed for this exact spot. The optics designed Mauna Kea atmospheric seeing; the dome designed for Mauna Kea atmospheric temperature, air pressure and turbulence; the survey strategy planned for Mauna Kea weather patterns and sky visibility.
Yes they had the permit but it was issued in violation of apparent rules. Appeals to lost investment and appeals to how great science is don't automatically trump this or do you want to live in a world where one government bureaucrat's wrong decision is set in stone?
I don't disagree with your overall sentiment here; this is disappointing. But if all this is true, then there's been real failures of risk analysis and over-specialization to a particular site. They should have a backup plan, considering how contentious this issue has been all the while. In particular there should be some adaptations that can be made to the main designs that, though not optimal, could make it feasible to relocate, or to replace one of the (many!) existing telescopes on the mountain.
For a start the telescope isn't actually that specialised, while the facility structure will have been designed for MKs typical wind patterns little else is site specific and it could be changed. Metal hasn't been cut yet. No survey strategy exists, it's too early for that.
The problem is not that the telescope wouldn't work anywhere else but that it's really too late in the day to be making such changes. A change in site will set the telescope back about 5 or more years, they will have to start site selection again because their other location choice is now taken by another telescope. All the other sites surveyed were in Hawaii. There is nowhere else in the US of this quality. A new site will also likely cost much more as few are developed. So the telescope will lose at least 5 years on it's competitors and all the cost of starting again and keeping everyone employed 5 more years. It may well miss out on key work in that time, it will probably loose the ability to do joint observations with the James Webb Space Telescope.
So even if it moved it will come much later than the larger European telescope and may have to be scaled back in performance after all the cash it will waste in the site swap. It may loose out on some early science or some science cases altogether if downsized. The real problem is it may not survive the change. Some countries currently signed up will decide to withdraw and back other projects which can be delivered on time. It may be that the cost of the change is large and too many people leave to continue the project. That is not some hypothetical, projects like this which lose momentum often fail. More money could be found but that's unlikely.
If it cannot be built here the whole project is seriously at risk and it will sacrifice science considerably even if it does survive.
Preliminary work on pipelines relating to the optics, PSFs, band throughputs, etc are simulated with Mauna Kea in mind.
Then that affects the possible science cases. And "survey strategy" at this point would mean allocation of time to contributors which is based on how much money they want to give for their projects by taking those prior simulations into account.
Perhaps the instrument isn't that specialized, but the project kind of is. TMT on Mauna Kea is essentially a completely different telescope from TMT at Apache Point.
They are simulated with MK in mind but that's just using the site parameters. It doesn't affect the design of the telescope only the simulated performance. You don't change your telescope because the site is poorer, it's just not as good.
TMT at APO would never be built because it's not that good a site. TMT at Armazones would be no different other than the enclosure would be modified for the conditions. Yes it effects the performance and science case slightly but you don't redesign a telescope because of that.
Money is committed on the basis of guaranteed time not on the basis of performance. The money was even committed before the design was finalised. There is no agreement for example over which bodies will receiver dark time and good seeing, those scheduling decisions are far more important in performance.
It would fundamentally change the science case, not just slightly. You have E-ELT and GMT in the southern hemisphere. A major part of the TMT science case is its survey footprint in the north to augment these other 30-meter class projects.
Money is committed on the basis of time -- with the expectation that the telescope will be able to deliver the type of science that your institute wants to do -- so an institute doing astroseismology is probably not going to put in money to a spectroscopy project like 4most or weave.
Money is absolutely committed on the basis of expected performance. And part of TMT performance is its location.
I agree physically the telescope is not that specialized. But TMT the project _is_ that specialized.
It's not fundamental to the science case. Nine of the major topics in the science case, if you read it, are hemisphere specific. It is not emphasised that a northern telescope is a big deal, few astronomers will have access to both.
This a national level project, institutions aren't making funding decisions. They do not consult the funding countries every time WFOS is redesigned with different performance. They did not consult them when the AO IFS MOS was replaced with MOSfire. With a big project like this the performance isn't well known at the point when you commit funding.
> We will in fact “take [our] toys and play in another sandbox,” because some of us actually care about the past and future of humanity as a race and our place in the stars.
Take it to La Palma, please. It needs the investment and construction jobs. Probably a few retired German hippies will complain, but no Palmeros.
Responsible adults need to step into the room and get this telescope built. Tribal voodoo about sacred dirt has no place in modern society. The indigenous people of Hawaii are just citizens, and while they get a say proportional to their numbers, they can and should be outvoted by reasonable people committed to scientific progress. They should get no special privilege to block scientific research because of their ancestors were or what they did.
> In 2005, a court-ordered environmental impact statement concluded that 30 years of astronomy had had an adverse effect on nature and culture on the mountain.
Wow, really ? It's like reading some document from the Middle-Ages or something.
I'm not sure what the disconnect is, this seems like fairly minor language. If you build roads and buildings where there's nothing it's going to have some impact, that's all I read from that.
From 1887 on, foreigners have been stealing from the Hawaiians. Now they're trying to steal Mauna Kea, and with all that money in play, broke their own laws to issue a permit. Thankfully, the Hawaiians have succeeded and have stopped yet one more thing - Mauna Kea - being stolen from them. The people against them have the same attitude as a thief - they want it, so they'll do whatever is needed to steal it.
Maybe because of sunk costs and inherent advantages, maybe because 'the natives' are not a monolith (I live in Hawaii and I have heard overwhelmingly pro-telescope views from people I know), and maybe there are similar interests against development everywhere else too?
It is a huge project where many many aspects must be designed for the specific site being chosen, so it is not something that is simply moved as the whole house is designed for the specicic climate of the site.
Also, The tmt is the next big US telescope, and they don't know of Any other site that is as good inside the country.
I very much understand the frustration on display here about the setback to science from this decision. But (admitting up front that I don't know a lot about the specific cultural context) I'm surprised by the lack of sympathy being shown for the people who evidently hold this space sacred.
All the (great!) scientific rationale in the world doesn't change the fact that this fits really well into the age-old pattern of Western societies barging in and imposing their will on other cultures. Pretty much every step of the displacement and marginalization of native peoples in history was seen as perfectly justified by the Western societies carrying it out. Now, personally, I'm much happier with the argument "we must seize this unique scientific opportunity" than with "we must seize these natural resources for a profit". But I expect that from the point of view of the native community, the result feels pretty much the same either way. I'm not happy with the pattern in Western history of condoning this sort of imperialism, and I'd very much like us as a society to quit it.
(And for the record, I can't shake the feeling that if it turned out that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem had turned out to be the ideal site for this telescope, most people would not be so immediately dismissive of the voices raised in opposition to building it there. Heck, I even expect there would be more sympathy if the best place for the telescope were a "secular sacred site" like Mount Rushmore: "Don't make Honest Abe wear a flying saucer for a hat!" the nation would cry, and nobody would accuse them of "tribalism".)
All the (great!) scientific rationale in the world doesn't change the fact that this fits really well into the age-old pattern of Western societies barging in and imposing their will on other cultures
(Shrug) I don't see those "other cultures" making investments in time, money, and education to try to understand the secrets of the Universe. In this case, their representatives appear to be doing the opposite.
In my book, that makes the native Hawaiian culture inferior to my own. Sue me.
> In my book, that makes the native Hawaiian culture inferior to my own.
I'm sure if you took honest stock of your culture there would be no shortage of episodes many times more egregious than this forced permit reevaluation and by your own shoddy reasoning that would make native Hawaiian culture superior to your own.
No, that's a completely irrelevant point that doesn't address mine in the slightest. If we had to be perfect before calling out bad behavior, we'd never be able to hire any police.
Following that logic we'd all be running around illiterate if we had to wait for Northern Europeans to invent writing. Something tells me you are not going to embrace the idea that your ancestors are just free riding off the great accomplishments of the Iraqis and Egyptians.
You're right, there's a lot to be said for growing one's own culture by appropriating elements of other cultures that work. "Free riding" on Western culture is exactly what the Hawaiians should be doing in this instance. Instead they've chosen to shove a potato up the exhaust pipe, and nobody gets to ride.
It's pretty ironic of you to cite Muslim and Egyptian cultures in defense of your own point. What have they done for us in the last 500 years? How long are they going to "free ride," as you put it?
>this fits really well into the age-old pattern of Western societies barging in and imposing their will on other cultures
>...justified by the Western societies
>...the pattern in Western history
You should try living in the East. A similar scenario in China would not go down the same way. The telescope would go up and there would be very little hand wringing involved in the decision.
Fair point: Europe and its descendants don't have anything like a monopoly on imperialism (and China in particular has that history going back a long, long time). I'm presumably focused on European imperialism because it's my heritage, and because Europe's age of imperial expansion has played a particularly widespread role in world history for the past few centuries. And also, because it's the one involved in the conflict in question here.
It's probably worth considering how these attitudes evolve over time, too. I'd guess that a hundred years ago, the U.S. wouldn't have done much hand wringing in this case, either.
Oh, wow. No, that was entirely accidental, but it shouldn't have been: I know that history reasonably well (but evidently only when I stop to think about it, which I suppose only serves to illustrate my point).
Hahahaha, nice! And you people talk about 'freedoms'. When it's YOU practicing your freedoms, it's freedom. When other people practice THEIR freedoms in THEIR places, it's 'tribalism', 'vodoo', and what have you. If you are not of the GLOBAL COSMOPOLITAN CABAL, you don't have rights to your own fking grounds? HAIL FREEDOM!
52 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 88.9 ms ] threadHawaii's indigenous culture has a interesting mix where racism against non-native races and prejudice against modern practices (like science) is the norm.
Would be good material for a traditionalist/modernist study.
The culture is uniquely xenophobic among American states, it's rather interesting really.
Since when does a research and education institution qualify as "industrial"? All over the US we have schools and universities smack in the middle of residential zones.
http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org
I honestly don't see how telescopes are disrespectful to begin with. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, countless other ancient monoliths were astronomical temples... These are literally the temples of the one 'religion' all humanity shares-- the love of space and the stars.
Whatever. Good job random celebrities on twitter who have never even been to Mauna Kea; you've successfully done whatever this is. We will in fact “take [our] toys and play in another sandbox,” because some of us actually care about the past and future of humanity as a race and our place in the stars.
It's a bit of a sucker punch because, for eight years, survey planning, software programming, building design, etc. have been underway with this specific site in mind. There are hundreds of people working on this. Tens to hundreds of thousands of man hours are wasted if this decision stands. PhD work on "site predictions for TMT" "Error estimations for TMT" "Optic Performance for TMT" etc. etc. are worthless.
This isn't a back-yard telescope you just prop up anywhere. This is a precision instrument that was designed for this exact spot. The optics designed Mauna Kea atmospheric seeing; the dome designed for Mauna Kea atmospheric temperature, air pressure and turbulence; the survey strategy planned for Mauna Kea weather patterns and sky visibility.
The problem is not that the telescope wouldn't work anywhere else but that it's really too late in the day to be making such changes. A change in site will set the telescope back about 5 or more years, they will have to start site selection again because their other location choice is now taken by another telescope. All the other sites surveyed were in Hawaii. There is nowhere else in the US of this quality. A new site will also likely cost much more as few are developed. So the telescope will lose at least 5 years on it's competitors and all the cost of starting again and keeping everyone employed 5 more years. It may well miss out on key work in that time, it will probably loose the ability to do joint observations with the James Webb Space Telescope.
So even if it moved it will come much later than the larger European telescope and may have to be scaled back in performance after all the cash it will waste in the site swap. It may loose out on some early science or some science cases altogether if downsized. The real problem is it may not survive the change. Some countries currently signed up will decide to withdraw and back other projects which can be delivered on time. It may be that the cost of the change is large and too many people leave to continue the project. That is not some hypothetical, projects like this which lose momentum often fail. More money could be found but that's unlikely.
If it cannot be built here the whole project is seriously at risk and it will sacrifice science considerably even if it does survive.
http://www.tmt.org/documents
Preliminary work on pipelines relating to the optics, PSFs, band throughputs, etc are simulated with Mauna Kea in mind.
Then that affects the possible science cases. And "survey strategy" at this point would mean allocation of time to contributors which is based on how much money they want to give for their projects by taking those prior simulations into account.
Perhaps the instrument isn't that specialized, but the project kind of is. TMT on Mauna Kea is essentially a completely different telescope from TMT at Apache Point.
TMT at APO would never be built because it's not that good a site. TMT at Armazones would be no different other than the enclosure would be modified for the conditions. Yes it effects the performance and science case slightly but you don't redesign a telescope because of that.
Money is committed on the basis of guaranteed time not on the basis of performance. The money was even committed before the design was finalised. There is no agreement for example over which bodies will receiver dark time and good seeing, those scheduling decisions are far more important in performance.
The telescope is not that specialised.
Money is committed on the basis of time -- with the expectation that the telescope will be able to deliver the type of science that your institute wants to do -- so an institute doing astroseismology is probably not going to put in money to a spectroscopy project like 4most or weave.
Money is absolutely committed on the basis of expected performance. And part of TMT performance is its location.
I agree physically the telescope is not that specialized. But TMT the project _is_ that specialized.
This a national level project, institutions aren't making funding decisions. They do not consult the funding countries every time WFOS is redesigned with different performance. They did not consult them when the AO IFS MOS was replaced with MOSfire. With a big project like this the performance isn't well known at the point when you commit funding.
Take it to La Palma, please. It needs the investment and construction jobs. Probably a few retired German hippies will complain, but no Palmeros.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roque_de_los_Muchachos_Observa...
Wow, really ? It's like reading some document from the Middle-Ages or something.
Also, The tmt is the next big US telescope, and they don't know of Any other site that is as good inside the country.
All the (great!) scientific rationale in the world doesn't change the fact that this fits really well into the age-old pattern of Western societies barging in and imposing their will on other cultures. Pretty much every step of the displacement and marginalization of native peoples in history was seen as perfectly justified by the Western societies carrying it out. Now, personally, I'm much happier with the argument "we must seize this unique scientific opportunity" than with "we must seize these natural resources for a profit". But I expect that from the point of view of the native community, the result feels pretty much the same either way. I'm not happy with the pattern in Western history of condoning this sort of imperialism, and I'd very much like us as a society to quit it.
(And for the record, I can't shake the feeling that if it turned out that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem had turned out to be the ideal site for this telescope, most people would not be so immediately dismissive of the voices raised in opposition to building it there. Heck, I even expect there would be more sympathy if the best place for the telescope were a "secular sacred site" like Mount Rushmore: "Don't make Honest Abe wear a flying saucer for a hat!" the nation would cry, and nobody would accuse them of "tribalism".)
(Shrug) I don't see those "other cultures" making investments in time, money, and education to try to understand the secrets of the Universe. In this case, their representatives appear to be doing the opposite.
In my book, that makes the native Hawaiian culture inferior to my own. Sue me.
I'm sure if you took honest stock of your culture there would be no shortage of episodes many times more egregious than this forced permit reevaluation and by your own shoddy reasoning that would make native Hawaiian culture superior to your own.
The argument is clearly ridiculous on it's face and as I said above trivially disproved by any number of direct and inverse examples.
It would probably have wooden beads on wires.
It's pretty ironic of you to cite Muslim and Egyptian cultures in defense of your own point. What have they done for us in the last 500 years? How long are they going to "free ride," as you put it?
>...justified by the Western societies
>...the pattern in Western history
You should try living in the East. A similar scenario in China would not go down the same way. The telescope would go up and there would be very little hand wringing involved in the decision.
It's probably worth considering how these attitudes evolve over time, too. I'd guess that a hundred years ago, the U.S. wouldn't have done much hand wringing in this case, either.
http://www.economist.com/node/11848993
Technically they were both very close but in the end the decision went to Mauna Kea mainly for proximity to other facilities.