US launches environmental study for Thirty Meter telescope on Mauna Kea
The National Science Foundation will examine the environmental impacts of a proposed optical telescope on the summit of Hawaii's tallest mountain, a project that has faced strong opposition from Native Hawaiians who consider the area sacred.
Native Hawaiians have long protested the plan to build what would be one of the world's largest optical telescopes on Mauna Kea, and say the $2.65bn project will further defile an area already harmed by a dozen other observatories.
The National Science Foundation on Tuesday published a notice of its plans to prepare an environmental impact statement for the $2.65bn Thirty Meter telescope, along with another proposed telescope on Spain's Canary Islands. It will host several meetings on the Big Island of Hawaii in August and said only after it considers public input, the environmental review and the project's technical readiness, will it decide whether to fund the project.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2022, @01:58PM (3 children)
If a new telescope is built after a painful series of holdups, it will only be because they paid off the Hawaiian native grifters whose motivation in all this was money.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Freeman on Tuesday July 26 2022, @02:38PM (2 children)
Just because their views don't align with yours, doesn't make them grifters. They still might be, but I wouldn't automatically assume that.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @09:06AM (1 child)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/06/12/understanding-the-thirty-meter-telescope-controversy/ [forbes.com]
So yes, it's about money. Two million a year isn't enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @09:15AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 26 2022, @02:40PM (2 children)
I've heard the arguments pro and con. I'm not convinced we need more telescopes on earth. Let's learn the lessons from our existing space telescopes, build more, better and cheaper, and start launching. Every major university needs it's own telescope launched, and lesser institutions can either launch less capable telescopes, or buy time on the better ones. Elon Musk is demonstrating that we can launch satellites by the thousands. Let's get it done!
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2022, @02:49PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2022/07/12/webb-why-nasas-new-ultimate-space-telescope-means-the-future-is-flat-packed/ [forbes.com]
We can expect all of the big new flagship telescopes to at least be foldable now, if not modular.
The problem is when they fold money into a black hole. NASA has been too risk averse and that drives up costs.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:38PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQFWGBFXCYI [youtube.com]
China's version of a Hubble-like telescope (perhaps more similar to WFIRST because of its large field of view) will be able to dock to a space station for repairs.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday July 26 2022, @04:01PM (5 children)
This is no different than the absurdity surrounding Ayer's Rock down in wackjob Aussie land.
Are we really going to let some loose ideology claim an entire mountain for their own superstitions?
I'm sure once the battle for Hawaii between the Chinese and Japanese ends and one of them reigns triumphant over the Hawaiian isles that they will surely respect these ephemeral claims.
Build the telescope. I want to read another story of the makers using their bare thumbs for the final polish and shaping of the mirror.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday July 26 2022, @05:33PM (4 children)
Well if we make it part a treaty we sign with the people who own the island then yeah. Yeah we should.
I know honoring our treaties with natives will be a dramatic change from tradition but we gotta start somewhere!
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:10PM (1 child)
Wouldn't natives be the unmoored persons with no email attachments or self-proclaimed pseudonyms?
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:10PM
oops, wrong thread
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:13PM (1 child)
The ex-monarchy making obsolete claims does not own the island. The people of the State of Hawaii own the island, or at least the administration of said island.
Since when did monarchies have a say in American affairs again?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @03:11AM
It may not be as rigorous as the rules for European type royalty, but the USA definitely has a ruling class. Look at the outrage when an outsider managed to get the top job for 4 years. And it wasn't due to his performance, the outrage started long before he even took office.
Compare that to the drooling idiot currently in there, and the lack of outrage at a cognitively-declining kiddie-touching old man being in charge simply because he is part of the elite.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26 2022, @05:05PM (7 children)
Blocking the construction of the telescope on religious grounds violates the establishment clause. Arguments made against the telescope on the basis of religion cannot define public policy.
The telescope can be blocked on secular grounds, such as concern about damage to the environment. A prior environmental study was deemed to be flawed because it only took into account the effect of the telescope on its immediate surroundings, which is why a new environmental study is needed.
In many states, citizens can gather signatures and could force an issue like the use of public land for observatories to be placed on the ballot. I would have no problem with this, but state law doesn't allow that. That's an issue with Hawaii law and is more general than this observatory. Even so, polls have found that roughly two-thirds of residents and half of Native Hawaiians actually support observatories on Mauna Kea. If this were to be placed on the ballot, it's very likely that voters would approve the observatories.
The establishment clause makes it pretty clear that the construction of observatories can't be blocked on religious grounds.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jelizondo on Tuesday July 26 2022, @05:56PM (1 child)
That’s the way it is supposed to work, but if it reaches the current Supreme Court, it will find that it does indeed violate religious liberty or some such. That’s what you get when fanatics get into power.
(Score: 3, Touché) by hendrikboom on Tuesday July 26 2022, @10:21PM
Not likely if the religion in question isn't a Christian offshoot.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday July 27 2022, @06:36AM (4 children)
(emphasis added)
This isn't a cut-and-dry establishment clause case; using eminent domain to permanently deprive a minority group of a worship site seems like it would fall afoul of the "free exercise" clause. I'm not sure what a good analogy would be to bring it closer to home, though. Taking over a historic Pow-Wow site to build a solar farm? Bulldozing a historic cathedral to build a sports arena?
If the site is unique (no substitute site that's Just-As-GoodTM), historic (they've worshiped there longer than they've had contact with outsiders), and culturally important I could see a liberal court balking over dismissing their claim.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @11:44AM (3 children)
This isn't an issue of eminent domain. Mauna Kea is part of what is referred to as ceded lands. These lands were placed under the control of the US government when Hawaii was annexed. As a condition of statehood, the lands were transferred to the state of Hawaii. At present, the state of Hawaii is responsible for the administration of these lands. These are public lands. If there is an issue with the legitimacy of these being public lands, it would be the original transfer of these lands to the US government in 1898, and actions in prior years that enabled the transfer. The monarchy was deposed in 1893, with support from US diplomatic and military officials, leading to the establishment of the Republic of Hawaii. Ultimately the Republic of Hawaii ceded the lands to the US government, but the issue is the legitimacy of the Republic of Hawaii to do so.
Let's say that the 1893 coup d'etat was illegal, as was the subsequent annexation. The logic seems to be that the Kingdom of Hawaii is the legitimate government, and that their lands were seized. The problem is that the Kingdom of Hawaii was established less than a century earlier, when the Hawaiian islands were unified. Although the actual unification was negotiated peacefully, this was after foreign interference and some very bloody conflicts like the Olowalu Massacre and the Battle of Kepaniwai.
There's a similar issue in the Great Plains. The US government broke a treaty with the Sioux and seized lands that include the Black Hills. The Sioux refuse to accept financial compensation, instead insisting that the Black Hills should be returned. It's pretty clear that the US broke their agreement with the Sioux and illegally seized the lands through conquest. However, the Sioux didn't control the Black Hills until the 18th century. The Sioux conquered the Black Hills in the 18th century and drove out other tribes like the Cheyenne, Crow, Kiowa, Arikara, and Arapaho. Who should rightfully control the Black Hills? It's clear that the US seizure of the land from the Sioux was illegal and inhumane. But the Sioux also seized the land from others. Are the tribes that lived there prior to the Sioux actually the rightful owners of the land, tribes that had generally negotiated agreements to peacefully live together in the Black Hills? If we decided that the Black Hills should be returned in their entirety to the Sioux, that would mean displacing even more people who currently live on those lands, something that the Sioux accept would be wrong. The lands won't be fully restored because doing so would forcibly displace even more people.
My point is that it's easy to point to events in the history of the US, correctly say that they were wrong, and that lands should be returned. The problem is that the issue is often more complex, because if we look back in history, the previous occupant of the lands might have conquered them from someone else. The act of returning seized lands, if they were returned in full, would forcibly drive even more people from their homes, something that everyone pretty much unanimously agrees is wrong. Even if the issue of building observatories on Mauna Kea was put to a vote of just Native Hawaiians, it's not at all clear that a majority wouldn't support building the observatories.
Is it more important to unwind all of the wrongs of the past, many of which cannot be fully undone? Or is it more important that we learn from those errors and choose not to drive more people from their lands in the future? Perhaps there should be a good faith offer of compromise like removing military bases from ceded lands but allowing scientific exploration to continue atop Mauna Kea.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday July 27 2022, @12:49PM (2 children)
I'm going to mod you up as informative, then ask you to explain how any of that is relevant to the topic of whether a lawsuit raising religious objections to telescope construction would fail under First Amendment analysis. Which flag is flying over the state capital has little to do with the cultural and religious significance of the proposed telescope construction site.
Also, I just read the full article (heresy, I know), and discovered that the Native Hawaiians aren't even bringing suit. They're just protesting. They plan on commenting at the public hearings. They object to adding yet another telescope to the dozen already on the site. Presumably, the previous instruments were put there against the Natives' objections. The article didn't say why their concerns were ignored previously, it simply quotes a protester who asks, “Why don’t people accept our ‘no’ for the answer?”. The points you just made are probably the answer to that question.
I'd still argue that the establishment clause is the wrong tool to use to overcome their objections. They aren't asking for a law granting the Native religion legal force, or making it the official state religion. They're asking for a historically significant religious site to be treated with respect, which has more to do with the free exercise clause than it does with the establishment clause.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 27 2022, @01:47PM (1 child)
I also read the full article and researched some of the history of this matter. I know, that's also heresy.
The establishment clause is relevant because public policy cannot be made for the purpose of respecting an establishment of religion. Blocking the construction of observatories on these grounds would violate the establishment clause. Again, these lands are currently public lands, so your statement about eminent domain was incorrect. My discussion is relevant because it is a rebuttal of your comment about eminent domain, provides detail about whose land this actually is, and explains how these became public lands.
The specific lands in question are under the stewardship of the University of Hawaii [hawaii.edu]. Let's review what this actually entails.
This is a key point that wasn't discussed in the article. This is not simply adding another telescope to an already crowded mountain. Instead, multiple telescopes are being removed and only one, the Thirty Meter Telescope, is being added. This is a net reduction of four telescopes on Mauna Kea.
Also of note is the mention of cultural impacts in that statement. Let's see what that actually means.
The university made an effort to identify sites on Mauna Kea that were actually in use for practicing religion, burial grounds, and other cultural practices. These sites are intentionally not being disturbed.
The university is taking steps to limit the amount of people who might disturb cultural, archaeological, and religious sites. And they are also providing access for cultural practitioners, meaning that Native Hawaiians still have access to Mauna Kea for religious activities.
From what I can tell, the university has taken many good faith steps to try to address concerns being raised by some Native Hawaiians. The word 'some' is important because many Native Hawaiians support the construction of the TMT. Despite the efforts to preserve cultural, religious, and archaeological sites, and the net removal of four telescopes, protesters are requesting that the government block the TMT on the basis that it disturbs sacred grounds. You mention the free exercise clause, but it seems clear to me that the university is acting to ensure that Native Hawaiians still have access to practice their religion on Mauna Kea.
If these are public lands, what basis is there in public policy to declare that large swathes of them are sacred grounds, and therefore that public use of them is severely restricted? That would be respecting an establishment of religion. It is not merely tolerating it by providing access to the mountain for religious access, but making public policy on the basis of that religion.
Where my post comes in is addressing the argument that these lands were illegally seized and shouldn't actually be public lands. If these are private lands, then whoever owns the land would be within their right to ban the construction of telescopes. Eminent domain would come into play if these were private lands. And this is the specific issue that my post was addressing. My point was that there is a case to be made that the US did illegally take these lands in the late 19th century, but I question whether the appropriate remedy is to relinquish them.
(Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday July 27 2022, @05:49PM
I think I understand where we're missing each other in this discussion: we are reading 1A differently. It's been a while since my High School constitutional law class, but my recollection is that the establishment phrase referred to the creation of an official state religion, e.g. the Church of England. While it has been broadly interpreted to delineate a separation between church and state, that does not (to my understanding) prohibit legislation that protects minorities against religious oppression.
That said, I think the rest of your analysis is spot on. Given that it's public land, that access is being granted to identified sacred sites, and that measures are being taken to avoid disturbing sensitive locations I don't think the protesters have a leg to stand on. They would have to prove that their religion really says, "no one should be up there, ever", which they kinda can't since there are shrines and whetever else that the faithful are visiting up there. They already are being granted the full measure of constitutional protection, which is probably why they're protesting like NIMBYist Californians complaining about crop land being replaced by Amazon warehouses.
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]