For my own selfish reasons - I dig deep-space photography and love reading
about new astronomical discoveries - I wish the telescope had gone ahead.
And when the benefits and competing interests are weighed up I tend to
agree the wrong decision was made here. However, I disagree with the
simplistic terms in which the argument has been couched: as a dispute
between superstitious "imbeciles" and enlightened, high-minded scientists,
almost between darkness and light. In Australia we have comparable disputes
all the time between native title holders and miners (our country has
acknowledged a kind of ownership of land by first inhabitants, though it is
limited - native title holders can conduct traditional activities on the
land in question but they can't build condominiums for example). Now of
course a mine is rather less noble than a telescope, but from the
perspective of the traditional owners, the concern is much the same: that a
part of that people's cultural heritage is being defiled by an unwanted
foreign construction. The desire to preserve that land in its original
state is rooted in a deep history of associations, stories and cultural
practices that are anchored to that place.
This urge is not truly so foreign to our experience: it is not all that
dissimilar from the dismay we feel when some place associated with rich
childhood memories is bulldozed to make way for a Walmart or something. We
have a sense of something sacred being desecrated. Again, a Walmart is not
a telescope, but I am pointing to the underlying dynamic, not claiming the
examples are perfectly analogous. When a tribal people claim that a
mountain is sacred, this is as much a statement of emotional and cultural
attachment to place as it is an expression of metaphysical/religious
beliefs about the mountain. It is an expression of reverence. To reduce it
to a simple question of factual correctness ("Ha! There *is* no Father Sky
you dummy!") is to miss the point.
When I trekked recently in Nepal, I visited Macchaphucchre, a mountain that
visitors are not permitted to climb because it is held sacred by the
Nepalese. In the presence of such an awesome and magnificent mountain it is
hard not to share in some sense of that reverence, even while
scientifically I know it is "just" a lump of rock pushed up by plate
tectonics. I don't believe the gods would be angered if anyone climbed it,
but I nevertheless hold it sacred in a way: it inspires humility and awe in
me. Perhaps the same emotions as I get looking at a deep space photograph.
In Melbourne we "worship" certain sports - cricket and Aussie-rules
football in particular. The Melbourne Cricket Ground, has been the arena on
which the most epic battles of those sports have taken place. It is common
for fans and sports writers to refer to the MCG as "hallowed ground" as a
result. We don't believe in any supernatural entities inhabiting the pitch,
but there are so many culturally significant stories associated with that
patch of ground that it has taken on a semi-mythic status. You can bet if
it was discovered that the MCG was the world's best place for dark matter
detection, you'd start a revolution if you tried to bulldoze it for a
dark-matter detector. My point is that it is cultural significance that is
relevant here, not the factual correctness or incorrectness of the beliefs
that Melburnians hold about the ground.
It has been shown that indigenous peoples' psychological wellbeing is much
enhanced if they are able to practice their cultural rituals on their
traditional lands. Denying them these practices on the other hand typically
leads to very negative social outcomes: the slide into alcoholism, domestic
violence, sexual abuse and the many other ills that end up being fuel for
racist attitudes towards these people. Sure we can say, "look at the funny
brown people with their quaint superstitions" or worse, "look at the
religious imbeciles", but values are not facts and facts are not values.
The argument that the telescope should be built (or not) can only be
founded on values, not facts. Like JC, I value the progress of scientific
knowledge highly, and I've never been to Mauna Kea, so I'm naturally in
favour of building it. But pointing to the factual incorrectness of
cultural stories surrounding the mountain is irrelevant, and reducing the
reverence of the native Hawaiians to "idiocy" is a typical piece of
cultural imperialism.
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015 at 4:56:39 AM UTC+11, John Clark wrote:
>
> The death of the Thirty Meter Telescope seems complete. In a sad parade
> construction equipment has been coming down Mauna Kea for the last several
> days probably never to return. The state said the equipment could stay
> there if the Thirty Meter Telescope people want to appeal but that would
> take years and jittery donors are terrified of offending religious
> imbeciles; so it looks like they're not even going to try an appeal and are
> just throwing in the towel. Kuuipo Freitas, a native Hawaiian imbecile,
> said: *"It's all pretty much cleared now. We know right now there's no
> construction that's going to be happening on Mauna Kea. We need to stop
> bowing down to the dollar and starting bowing down to the Mauna. She can
> just stand majestically without being harmed."*
> So instead of an instrument to help us understand the universe we have a
> bunch of ignorant dimwits bowing down to a mountain. You'd think they were
> trying to build a glue factory and not one of the most noble structures
> ever built by humans on the planet.
>
> John K Clark
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
