On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 2:01:09 PM UTC+11, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 12/27/2015 5:49 PM, Pierz wrote: >> > 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. >> >> That's true that decisions must be based on values as well as facts. >> And we have laws and courts codifying our values and democracy to make >> the laws. If the Hawiians simply said, "We've heard stories about this >> mountain since we were children and we like to think of it as a special >> place (even though we've never been there) so you can't put a telescope >> on it." they'd be laughed out of court. Why? Because then it would be >> patently obvious that just anybody could make up stories to block any >> use of any particular piece of land. So they rest their values on the >> existence of supernatual beings. They try to support their nostalgic >> feelings by facts; except their facts are false. >> >> I don't think they are imbeciles. I think they are cunning ignoramuses >> who have figured out how to game the legal system to maintain their >> position of specialness and spiritual superiority. >> > > Look, I know little about this case and the people involved. Perhaps your > statement is based on more than supposition. >
Good point, and I am in the same situation. Maybe JC and Brent know some details that we don't. I was reacted to the facts as presented, and mostly to the attitude of treating cultures that have not reached the age of science and technology as barbaric imbeciles. I don't see this as the natural stance of an advanced civilization, that truly embodies the values of the enlightenment. > And like I said, I'm not really on their side in this specific case. But > cultural and religious significance is one factor that is taken into > consideration in many legal contexts when it comes to development, and in > my view that's as it should be. After all, most indigenous peoples have > seen their lands, sacred and otherwise, taken over and obliterated by > development for the benefit of people with no connection to that land > whatsoever. I see no reason why they should fabricate or exaggerate the > cultural significance of a site merely in order to be ornery. More likely > their concerns are real. You say they've "gamed" the system and imputed > nefarious motives, but that is surely for a judge to decide, taking into > account the social values which the legal system, as you point out, was put > in place to uphold. > Agreed, you stated this more clearly than I was able to. Telmo. > > >> Brent >> > -- > 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. > -- 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.
