Space Force wants 7 new telescopes in Hawaii. Local residents say 'no

[Admin]

Some Hawaii residents oppose plans from the U.S. Space Force to build a suite of new telescopes designed to track and prevent satellites in orbit from colliding.

Space Force wants 7 new telescopes in Hawaii. Local residents say 'no : Read more

 

[sciencecompliance]

The mountain literally spits lava, but a few buildings is sacrilege? Give me a break. Even 700 gallons of diesel fuel is nothing compared to the environmental havoc caused by a volcanic eruption.

 

[scennimo]

negatively impacting their mental, emotional and spiritual health, yeah, right!!

 

[AlbusRockets]

The mountain literally spits lava, but a few buildings is sacrilege? Give me a break. Even 700 gallons of diesel fuel is nothing compared to the environmental havoc caused by a volcanic eruption.

I believe you're thinking of Mauna Loa or Kilauea. Haleakala volcano hasn't erupted in some 500 years; so no, it does not "literally spit lava" at least not in the manner to which you're implying.

Furthermore, demeaning an entire group of people because they find portions of their land to be culturally significant is extremely classless.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

The mountain literally spits lava, but a few buildings is sacrilege? Give me a break. Even 700 gallons of diesel fuel is nothing compared to the environmental havoc caused by a volcanic eruption.

Don't "let the perfect be the enemy of the good", "Two wrongs don't make a right", etc.

Also, this isn't (entirely) about the environment. It's about their culture/religion. Try to be more empathic. You ask "The mountain literally spits lava, but a few buildings is sacrilege?", but what if the answer is just… "Yes"? You can't decide what's sacrilege to them, and you'd probably be upset if they tried to force their beliefs on you.

---

negatively impacting their mental, emotional and spiritual health, yeah, right!!

Why is this hard to believe?

---

Furthermore, demeaning an entire group of people because they find portions of their land to be culturally significant is extremely classless.

I don't think he was "demeaning an entire group of people", because his post never left the scope of a rebuttal (even though I disagree with him). The closest he got to demeaning was saying "Give me a break.", but I think that's reasonable.

 

[sciencecompliance]

I believe you're thinking of Mauna Loa or Kilauea. Haleakala volcano hasn't erupted in some 500 years; so no, it does not "literally spit lava" at least not in the manner to which you're implying.

Furthermore, demeaning an entire group of people because they find portions of their land to be culturally significant is extremely classless.

500 years is nothing in geological timescales, certainly less time than the Hawaiian people have been on the island, and religion is a bad justification for anything, regardless of which culture it comes from. I apply the same standard to white Europeans in case you were wondering. Space domain awareness is more important than some people's superstition.

 

[sciencecompliance]

Don't "let the perfect be the enemy of the good", "Two wrongs don't make a right", etc.

Also, this isn't (entirely) about the environment. It's about their culture/religion. Try to be more empathic. You ask "The mountain literally spits lava, but a few buildings is sacrilege?", but what if the answer is just… "Yes"? You can't decide what's sacrilege to them, and you'd probably be upset if they tried to force their beliefs on you.

I don't care about their or anyone else's religion (including people of European descent). What I care about is space domain awareness. They can still be superstitious with a few buildings on top of that mountain.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

500 years is nothing in geological timescales, certainly less time than the Hawaiian people have been on the island

Why does that matter? Geology was never mentioned. 500 years is significant in ecological timescales, certainly more time than any Hawaiian person has been on the island.

I don't care about their or anyone else's religion

That's a fair statement. If they can oppose because of their beliefs, then you can support because of yours (assuming you're an American, and this is federal land).

 

[sciencecompliance]

Why does that matter? Geology was never mentioned. 500 years is significant in ecological timescales, certainly more time than any Hawaiian person has been on the island.

Geology was never mentioned? That's literally what we're talking about. Wikipedia states that the Polynesians arrived in Hawaii between 940 and 1200 A.D. This means that that mountain has erupted since they've been there, so the idea that it would be some immutable thing according to their culture is just wrong or indicative of their lack of historical record-keeping.

That's a fair statement. If they can oppose because of their beliefs, then you can support because of yours (assuming you're an American, and this is federal land).

Not all beliefs are equal. This is an asinine point. Maybe all superstitious beliefs are equally bad, but that's not what I'm espousing. I would say the same thing to people who think Jesus rose from the dead (he didn't). One side of this argument is invoking religion, and the other is trying to gain space domain awareness to improve infrastructure that meaningfully impacts people's well-being and possibly assess potential threats above our heads. They're not comparable lines of argumentation.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Geology was never mentioned? That's literally what we're talking about.

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. /gen I meant that it doesn't seem to be a part of either the Hawaiian's argument or the USSF's. I shall rephrase my statement:

The fact that "500 years is nothing in geological timescales" has no relevance to this argument. Working on geological timescales arguably renders the wills of the USA and its people negligible because the USA hasn't even lived for 500 years, which is "nothing".

The USSF wants to do something for strategic reasons, but the Hawaiians oppose for ecological and cultural reasons. No one cares that 500 years is considered fast in geology. @AlbusRockets' argument still stands.

that mountain has erupted since they've been there, so the idea that it would be some immutable thing according to their culture is just wrong

I've never heard of this idea. Do you have a source for it?

Not all beliefs are equal.

I didn't attest to any belief's validity. Because I'm not so arrogant, I don't realize that everyone thinks that what they think is correct is correct even if it isn't.

One side of this argument is invoking religion, and the other is trying to gain space domain awareness to improve infrastructure that meaningfully impacts people's well-being and possibly assess potential threats above our heads. They're not comparable lines of argumentation.

That's pretty reductive of the Hawaiian's side. One stated "It is a continuation of settled colonial projects.", which implies that it's also about them feeling disrespected. The federal government disrespecting a minority of it's people is way more than saying the word "religion", let alone the ecological concerns.

You also inflated the USSF's side. A more accurate description would be "they're trying to improve space domain awareness.", or you could say "One side is invoking government interests.".

So I agree that "They're not comparable lines of argumentation.", because you misrepresented your opposition.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What is the distinction between "sacred place" and "not in my backyard"?

The distinction appears to be that "sacred" applies to beliefs that were (at least allegedly) in existence before the people holding those beliefs were over run by a different culture that does not hold the same beliefs, but feels the need to show some respect to the culture that it conquered.

There will always be some people who would prefer to see things remain as they are. And, some will not like loosing access to places that they once held as "special" to their feeling of comfort.

Although nobody would respect my feelings as "sacred", I have watched the wild places that I used to visit as a child and young adult get bulldozed into unrecognizable condition and then covered with industries and seemingly endless tracts of suburban housing and strip malls. I definitely feel the loss. In my mind's eye, I can still see the previous conditions of these places that are no longer as they were. In one place, I can stand on a huge rock that was not moved, close my eyes and see the world of my youth spread out where it once was. But, then opening my eyes hurts my sense of well being and control of my own destiny.

So, I can relate. But, it ultimately comes down to a social and political decision. What do we set aside to remain as it has been in our memories and our ancestors' memories, and what do we allow others to change in the name of "progress". As human populations increase, and conflicts increase along with the population, we will have fewer and fewer places that will remain untouched.

 

[George²]

and cultural reasons.

Rather, because of financial reasons, because of tourism, which they sell through advertising of cultural and religious artifacts and natural attractions.