I worked at the observatories on Mauna Kea for 30+ years. I would very much like to see the Thirty Meter Telescope built there. But I've made a lot of bets with other people that it won't get built in Hawaii.
You can make an argument for building the TMT. You can make an argument for not building it. But there's no argument I can think of to support what the state is doing. The first time that the TMT tried to start construction, back in 2015, a fairly small group of protestors was able to halt construction by standing in the road and blocking vehicles. The police would come up the mountain, stand around for about 5 hours waiting for instructions from sea level, arrest perhaps 5 percent of the protestors, which did not allow the contruction vehicles to pass, and then everyone would drive down the hill again. The protestors built a small, unpermitted building (illegally) near the point where they wanted to block the road, and the state made no effort to prevent them from doing so. The protestors would pile stones in the access road to the TMT site, and then claim the pile of stones was a sacred alter. The state would remove the alters after a very long period of dithering. So the protestors could build, in a few hours, a physical obstruction that the state would take days or weeks to move. In general, the state made about 1% of the effort that would have been required to allow the TMT construction vehicles to reach the site.
This time, the group of protestors is far larger. They have camped out at a place that is more convenient for them, logistically. Unlike the situation in 2015, they have shut down all of the observatories on Mauna Kea. If the state made 1% of the required effort to open the road in 2015, this year they are making 0.01% of the required effort. The police drive up, hug the various protestors for a few hours, join the protestors in prayer. Then drive back down the mountain after having no effect at all. Yesterday, they made some token "arrests" which involved issuing misdemeanor citations. Some of the persons who had been escorted away from the road blockage immediately returned to block the road after the citation was issued.
This is a wonderful example of asymmetric warfare. At first glance it looks like the state is the powerful entity, but the protestors have all sorts of levers they really haven't started using yet. How long will the University of California remain a member of the TMT collaboration once UC students start having sit ins? The University of Hawaii's Hawaiian Studies Program (most of the members of which oppose the TMT) is far stronger politically than its Astronomy Department - how long will it be before student protestors force the University of Hawaii to drop out of the project? How long until protestors on other Hawaiian islands start blocking state facilities?
There were at least 1000 protestors involved with blocking the road yesterday; some estimates put the number at 2000. There is no facility on the island of Hawaii where that many people could be incarcerated. And there is no indication that the state is willing to incarcerate anyone who is blocking the road. If the state actually makes a serious effort to open the road for the construction vehicles, there will be many consecutive days where the television coverage will show weeping, elderly ladies in mumus being hauled away to sea level. Day after day after day. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the state is willing to do that, and recent history shows that they will not. Even if the state had the nerve to forcefully open the road, for how many weeks could that go on before some member of the TMT collaboration decided that TMT is not worth the black eye Astronomy is getting in the court of public opinion?
In addition to blocking the road, the anti-TMT protestors are still filing frivolous lawsuits to stop construction. I think they would be wiser to drop their legal efforts and just let the current sutuation play out. If they get a court order to stop construction (as they did in 2015), the state could still pretend that it would have eventually cleared the road and allowed construction to begin. The TMT management might be deluded enough to think they could still build on Mauna Kea. But if the protestors drop the lawsuits, and just allow it to become crystal clear that the state won't clear the road and get the construction equipment to the site, then everyone will finally know that the TMT won't get built on Mauna Kea.
As I said, I'm a TMT supporter. But sometimes you have to admit defeat and go on to plan B.
Compare the current situation with how the Occupy Wall Street protestors were treated.
What you are describing is the state siding with the supporters. They're doing the nominal minimum to enforce the law and they know that's not enough. If the state wanted to side with the TMT people then the protestors would be arrested whether there's facilities for them or not. You're right it won't be built in Hawaii. The state has sided with the opposition.
But I think it's worse than that. The state is still claiming (as of yesterday) that they will ensure that the TMT equipment can get to the summit. The Governor declared a state of emergency yesterday, to give the police more power. He has activated the National Guard. Additional police have been brought in from Oahu. But in reality, the state is not doing anything effective. So you might be right that the state has effectively sided with the protestors, but it makes no sense for the state to behave as it is. The state is just looking impotent and ridiculous.
Take the issue off the table. I'm a huge TMT supporter, but I don't know where it should go. Instead look at the drivers from the political level. Remember that political systems exist for political reasons.
Group X wants something done. Group Y doesn't want it done. There is a political street-level fight. Group X continues to support you as long as you say the right thing. Group Y not only supports you, it draws in major national and international news coverage. As the fight drags on, then, you get more and more support.
So why should it be any other way than the way it is? From a political marketing standpoint, this is a buzz generator. If you play your cards right, you can actually appear to be on both sides of this issue at the same time. The longer it drags on the more support you get, the more you energize the base.
I don't see this resolving any time soon, and I completely agree that it's unconscionable what's going on here. But whatever is going on, it's going on for logical reasons for those allowing it to be this way. There may be corruption in the way decisions are made, but there's no incompetence here that I can see.
That's not a charitable interpretation of the comment to which you're replying. They didn't state that they wished or wanted or preferred that that happen, merely that it not happening effectively reveals the limits of the state's 'desires'.
Extremely interesting account! Regarding plan B, just to point out that the people in Roque de los Muchachos (primary alternate site) here in Spain, is organizing in favor of the TMT: https://www.facebook.com/queremoselTMT/
It was my understanding that Hawaii is one of the two best places in the world for ground based telescopes though? I'm not refuting you, just interested in your insights. Wouldn't the light pollution in Spain have a noticeable effect?
The Spanish site that the TMT is considering is in the Canary Islands, far from mainland Spain. Like Mauna Kea, that site has several large observatories on it already. Like Mauna Kea, it's in the northern hemisphere (which the TMT wants) but not too far north. It is an excellent site, but it is at a lower elevation than Mauna Kea, with somewhat poorer seeing.
Since 2015 it has been clear to many of us who watched the protests that year and the endless public meetings which followed, that the TMT could not be built in Hawaii. Still, I've been astonished this week by how massive the protest has been, and how feeble the state response has been.
Thanks, that was very interesting and sad. I guess the constituency against the telescope is small, vocal and concentrated, whereas the pro-telescope constituency is much larger, but very distributed and not very motivated.
If we're thinking of the same poll, it was conducted in 2015 and the polling was backed by Caltech, who has a vested interest in TMT and neither the instrument or the raw data were available for other researchers to analyze.
An independent poll conducted by the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in 2018 found that 72 percent of Native Hawaiians (registered voters) support TMT, 23 percent oppose it and 5 percent were undecided.
I’ve been to the top of Mauna Kea many times. It’s a magical place. I think there was a bad start to observatory construction in the earlier days when less respect was given. But the level of respect that is given to the mountain and people now seems appropriate, and I think is a mutually beneficial thing to have these telescopes so I am sad this resistance is still there. I do get that the TMT does damage a new previously untouched area, it’s unfortunate there wasn’t a spot where it could replace an existing older telescope.
Very insightful analysis of the asymmetry in this situation. I also conclude defeat is the only option. It's too bad TMT couldn't have cast this in some sort of positive light, emphasizing how the observatory is a tribute to the spirit of native hawaiians, how the mountain is providing again to the people of Hawaii, but in the form of scientific results instead of water, food, or whatever it provided before.
I also wonder how much of the protest is in truly good faith versus wanting to show indirect displeasure with the conditions Hawaiian natives are currently living in. I don't really have insight into this, but it feels like this is more a protest against mainstream US culture, than it is against the scopes themselves.
The TMT and its supporters did try, many times, to show how research in Astronomy could be considered a continuation of the traditions of Native Hawaiians, who navigated the Pacific astronomically (at least in part). Some Hawaiians agree with this argument. But there is a core group of Native Hawaiians for whom arguments about the merits of the TMT are irrelevant. They don't want more construction on Mauna Kea, full stop.
If something like this controversy involved a Native group on the US mainland, things might be simpler. There would probably be a native government for the Navaho, or Souix, etc that the TMT could negotiate with. If the TMT got the go ahead from the native government, then that government would deal with protestors among their own people, if the TMT did not get permission from the native government, then it would know that it could not proceed. But there is no widely recognized Native Hawaiian government. There's nobody for the TMT to negotiate with that all the protestors would obey. So the TMT negotiated with the state government, but many Native Hawaiians do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state.
I think his point is that it's the fault of the people who, ironically, would be at less of a disadvantage now if they'd been less imperialistic in the past. Native Hawaiians had a government that was dismantled by force; it's not their fault that they don't currently have a government.
Does it seem possible that if the cops sent to break up the protests end up praying beside them and that maybe this is a project local people truly don’t want?
I visited some telescopes there 2 months ago. The researchers are doing a fantastic job. The place has no life on it, it's barren due to the altitude and the lack of oxygen. No animal, plant or human ever ever lived up there. Those observatories are mostly remote-controlled and only 4 researchers were up there to monitor the 13 observatories the day we went.
Ironically, the largest traffic going up there are actually people going there to take instagram pictures about the sacred mountain.
So sad that a very unique scientific spot, with very high altitude in the middle of an ocean is getting in trouble for religious motives.
That is a very ignorant way of putting it. Personally, I feel they should build it, but to belittle people that way is not right.
And besides religious reasons some people consider Hawaii as Occupied by the US, and the land is theirs, and not for use by the US for observatories. (I don't agree because it's annexed (they can vote), not Occupied.)
But despite my feelings on the matter, I'm not going to go around disregarding people's beliefs.
There is an incredible land pressure on Hawaii. People that have lived there for generations have been pushed to the margins. Homelessness is all-time high, and it impacts native Hawaiians disproportionately[1]. This isn't just about "religious motives" it is about land rights. What is reserved for the indigenous people and what can be appropriated given the "right" motivations.
You really need to visit the place of which you speak. The top of Mauna Kea and Haleakala on Maui, my home, for that matter are not living places and have nothing to do with homelessness and Hawaii. There is room for both science and the few living creatures at these beautiful places high up.
This is what happens with religion: it impedes progress, and makes people behave completely irrationally.
These observatories aren't causing environmental problems (AFAIK); they're great tools for humanity to understand our universe. There aren't many locations on Earth that have the advantages this location has, yet these people want to stop this for what? Irrational superstitions? If this were some corporation trying to do mountaintop removal mining (like they do in West Virginia), it would be perfectly rational to oppose that: that's an environmental catastrophe. But this is not, this is one of the most benign things humans can do.
I urge you to do some research into why they're protesting and not jump to wild conclusions. Try to think of the protestors as sane, rational humans who have values that's derived from a unique history and culture.
I'm not saying they're "right" or they're "wrong", but just that they have a perspective that's valid and reasonable.
Casting others as zealots only serves to confirm our own biases and doesn't lead to more understanding, which is what we need.
I imagine it has something to do with annexing their land and attempting to erase their culture. This isn't an isolated incident, but yet another example of America's disregard for indigenous people and their right to some degree of self-determination. What respect do they owe us for our desire for progress when we haven't respected their desires? And how much has that disregard contributed to a sense of zero-tolerance of encroachment, even in cases where it would objectively benefit humanity and society? Let's be honest, this isn't coming out of a completely misplaced sense of spite.
make widening our understanding of the universe into religion, problem solved. (i thought about making the scientific method into a religion, but it doesn't make any sense :))
Everyone takes things on faith. For instance most could quite trivially prove PV=nRT, but most just take someone else’s word on faith.
In a universe where you can never really know something unless you’ve proven it yourself, you take nearly everything on faith from someone else who claims to have proven it.
I don't think 'faith' covers both things. Yes, a lot of people accept lots of things as being true on the authority of others, but there's lots of other evidence that those authorities are trustworthy. The details, i.e. the specific differences, of religious claims aren't correlated with any other evidence, or even possible evidence, which is why it's so much easier for so many different creeds to exist even given that they make different, and often contradictory claims.
As an example, most people haven't directly carried out all of the relevant experiments needed to discover the laws and theories of electromagnetism, but the evidence of TV, radio, telegraphs are easy enough to perceive and thereof trust. There doesn't seem to be nearly anything similar for religious beliefs, that would make any specific religion more likely than any other. Most of the evidence that does exist for religions seems to be common to any or all of them, e.g. the benefits of group cohesion, common morality, etc..
>For instance most could quite trivially prove PV=nRT, but most just take someone else’s word on faith.
No, that's not faith, not in a religious sense. People accept stuff like that because they believe that other people have followed all the proper procedures to prove this is true (within tolerance of error, etc.), and that they aren't making it up or lying for some reason, and most importantly, that it is independently reproducible and verifiable.
Religious faith has no such element of verifiability. So this isn't "faith" at all.
Isaac Asimov explored that idea in the Foundation series. At one point science became a religion and even had priests. One notable aspect of the religion of science is that it actually works (prayers are answered, etc), which made for some interesting story telling.
Sounds interesting, but I can see that the problem with a society like that is that by restricting the practice of science to a select group of elites, you're holding back progress because people who aren't in that group, who have a great talent (or determination) for scientific work, are presumably being prevented from entering the field.
Imagine if we went back in time to 1980, and made it so that the only people who could write computer programs had to attend special schools and go through an expensive licensing process, and no one was allowed to do it on their own, schools weren't allowed to establish their own programs, and people couldn't even write a simple shell script without going to jail. We wouldn't have the technology we have today.
"The past is never dead. It's not even past." This argument is about sovereignty. Hawai'i was overthrown 125 years ago, and today's zeitgeist calls that injustice. Of course, the overthrow was not something that happened once, then ended. We choose daily whether to reaffirm the ethos of overthrow, or how to reject it.
When Akaka convened the working group described in the article, that is one way to grapple with the question of sovereignty. When people talk about whether Native Hawaiians support the telescope, that is another way to do it.
In this thread, I see a lot of comments that don't seem aware of the undercurrent. To describe the opposition as superstitious makes sense if you're dismissing some weird part of your own polity. If you were talking about opposition to a cow science facility in India, you probably wouldn't describe the opposition as superstitious. (Not because they aren't, but because sovereign people are entitled to their beliefs.) People are welcome to dismiss the sovereignty of Hawaiians on a message board, but I thought I'd write this comment for anyone that doesn't get what the conversation is about.
Similarly, to say that the opposition is "small but vocal" fails to comprehend why the state does not simply remove them. It's because the public (while conflicted) does not love the ethos of overthrow, and the state cannot cart away the protestors without reaffirming that ethos in a very public way.
From what I can tell, this doesn't actually provide any context on the protests. There's precious little information on who is protesting (I gather from context native Hawaiians), no information on why they're protesting, and a lot of talk about how this set of protests is actually a battle for the heart of mainstream science.
This article [1], linked from the original article, seems to actually have some context for the protests.
The Keystone XL pipeline protest didn't stop it, and the hatreds that resulted will probably last. I do wonder if some family members will ever talk to each other civilly again. The funny part for me is some of the same people are doing the protesting at both places. The paid trip to Hawaii was a nice bonus.
I do hope someone charts to fortunes of the reservation businesses before and after the protest to show the economic impact to the tribe.
I sincerely hope the TMT gets built regardless and in spite of this opposition. It would be an absolute shame to allow a special interest group to use superstition to stop a project that would contribute such a tremendous amount to the advancement of humanities understanding of the cosmos.
It also genuinely makes my blood boil that as a society we've come to a point where we allow superstitions and fairy tales so much space in public discourse, as it legitimizes fundamentally irrational viewpoints and places them on equal footing with rationally based systems of knowledge, which is frankly a death knell for progress.
If you create a report button I would be happy to report it and move on. Without the ability to report comments for moderation, users feel empowered to handle it themselves. This is a design problem creating a UX problem.
You can make an argument for building the TMT. You can make an argument for not building it. But there's no argument I can think of to support what the state is doing. The first time that the TMT tried to start construction, back in 2015, a fairly small group of protestors was able to halt construction by standing in the road and blocking vehicles. The police would come up the mountain, stand around for about 5 hours waiting for instructions from sea level, arrest perhaps 5 percent of the protestors, which did not allow the contruction vehicles to pass, and then everyone would drive down the hill again. The protestors built a small, unpermitted building (illegally) near the point where they wanted to block the road, and the state made no effort to prevent them from doing so. The protestors would pile stones in the access road to the TMT site, and then claim the pile of stones was a sacred alter. The state would remove the alters after a very long period of dithering. So the protestors could build, in a few hours, a physical obstruction that the state would take days or weeks to move. In general, the state made about 1% of the effort that would have been required to allow the TMT construction vehicles to reach the site.
This time, the group of protestors is far larger. They have camped out at a place that is more convenient for them, logistically. Unlike the situation in 2015, they have shut down all of the observatories on Mauna Kea. If the state made 1% of the required effort to open the road in 2015, this year they are making 0.01% of the required effort. The police drive up, hug the various protestors for a few hours, join the protestors in prayer. Then drive back down the mountain after having no effect at all. Yesterday, they made some token "arrests" which involved issuing misdemeanor citations. Some of the persons who had been escorted away from the road blockage immediately returned to block the road after the citation was issued.
This is a wonderful example of asymmetric warfare. At first glance it looks like the state is the powerful entity, but the protestors have all sorts of levers they really haven't started using yet. How long will the University of California remain a member of the TMT collaboration once UC students start having sit ins? The University of Hawaii's Hawaiian Studies Program (most of the members of which oppose the TMT) is far stronger politically than its Astronomy Department - how long will it be before student protestors force the University of Hawaii to drop out of the project? How long until protestors on other Hawaiian islands start blocking state facilities?
There were at least 1000 protestors involved with blocking the road yesterday; some estimates put the number at 2000. There is no facility on the island of Hawaii where that many people could be incarcerated. And there is no indication that the state is willing to incarcerate anyone who is blocking the road. If the state actually makes a serious effort to open the road for the construction vehicles, there will be many consecutive days where the television coverage will show weeping, elderly ladies in mumus being hauled away to sea level. Day after day after day. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the state is willing to do that, and recent history shows that they will not. Even if the state had the nerve to forcefully open the road, for how many weeks could that go on before some member of the TMT collaboration decided that TMT is not worth the black eye Astronomy is getting in the court of public opinion?
In addition to blocking the road, the anti-TMT protestors are still filing frivolous lawsuits to stop construction. I think they would be wiser to drop their legal efforts and just let the current sutuation play out. If they get a court order to stop construction (as they did in 2015), the state could still pretend that it would have eventually cleared the road and allowed construction to begin. The TMT management might be deluded enough to think they could still build on Mauna Kea. But if the protestors drop the lawsuits, and just allow it to become crystal clear that the state won't clear the road and get the construction equipment to the site, then everyone will finally know that the TMT won't get built on Mauna Kea.
As I said, I'm a TMT supporter. But sometimes you have to admit defeat and go on to plan B.