You call that amazing telescope a monstrosity, so the language Greeks very... Slanted. I'd like to hear the arguments presented more calmly.

...the indigenous people of my home state. Of course it's been "accidental" -- just collateral damage from the March of Progress -- but an extinct culture is still extinct.

Except in this case it's not extinct. They have been slowly but steadily making a comeback. Sorry if that is giving the haoles some pilikia.

And by the gods, the Hawaiian people were not created for the amusement of tourists snapping photos of hula dancers and making faces at luau poi bowls.

I've been gone from the Islands a long time, but I am marked forever by having lived there through my formative years, elementary school through university, having my children there. That is the ground I stand upon.

That is the ground I stand upon, despite a love of scientific achievement, Enlightenment values, and all the rest. However, as far back as my graduate school experience in English Lit, I could see the drawbacks to taking those values to their logical extreme, in reading essays by Francis Bacon, who wrote that Science now had the capability to "put Nature on the rack" and "torture her secrets out of her." I don't need to look it up. The words are burned into my memory by how shocked I was when I read them.

You all want the massive lens of the telescope to look at the stars, but cannot turn the lens of compassion on him and the people of Hawai'i, to ask: "What do you want? Is there a genuine compromise here?" To do that would be to acknowledge their rights -- that they have rights.

Ellison believes passionately, but he is not speaking the same language as the rest of you. I hope I can translate somewhat, but judging from the lack of response, I am also failing to get through.

And it is a little late to stop building on Mauna Kea where there are already quite a few world class telescopes.



So nope. I cannot support your petition.

Just because it's already been built upon why should it be built upon at an unprecedented scale? How many is enough? How big?

There was an alternate site considered:

"It was clear from all the information we received that both sites were among the best in the world for astronomical research,” said Edward Stone, Caltech's Morrisroe Professor of Physics and vice chairman of the TMT board. “Each has superb observing conditions and would enable TMT to achieve its full potential of unlocking the mysteries of the Universe.”

http://www.tmt.org/news-center/thirty-meter-telescope-selects-mauna-kea

Sorry. I just cannot go there with you.

The TMT will be a significant advancement in astronomy. Hawaiians should be proud to host it.

It really will be an amazing device.

Many Hawaiians are undoubtedly disgusted by it. The letter to the governor is signed by six leading Hawaii scholars and cultural practitioners.

Should your special places be despoiled simply because an "amazing device" might lead to a significant advancement in astronomy? What will this really tell us that we cannot learn otherwise?

It is a little late to start claiming foul. I therefore find any such claims to be at best disingenuous.

The summit of Mauna Kea is a barren wasteland. Where better to put the TMT? As somebody else here pointed out to you, there is little life there.

Of course, the other barren wasteland that they build these things is the Atacama desert in the Andes. That is in the Southern Hemisphere. Hawaii is the prime location in the north.

I have heard no credible argument of any harm by this project.

Not in the least bit. This is of unprecedented size. Hawaiian's have been crying foul since 1893.

"The summit of Mauna Kea is a barren wasteland."

No it's not: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026461330#post14

This is a big construction project in a very sensitive environment. You may not value the life that is there, but I assure you many people in the State of Hawaii do.

And the E-ELT being built in the Atacama, which is even larger than the TMT.

Science is the best idea humans have ever had.
Bill Nye

There is no fauna and very little flora there. See the pic in one of my other posts here. The main damage argued here is the perception of harm to a volcano god. That's like opposing a museum of natural history because of creationists.

There are two very great observatories on this planet. One is high in the Andes on the Atacama desert plateau. The other is on Mauna Kea. The two cover both hemispheres, north and south. Mauna Kea has been operational since the 1960's.

Some people would eliminate northern hemisphere world class astronomy coverage for a volcano god.

I find that a bit disturbing and more than a bit medieval.

BTW, the observatory is above 4000 meters. Workers there have access to oxygen in case of emergency. Astronomers access the telescopes remotely via Internet, in real time, even thousands of miles away. The human footprint at the summit is minimal, in spite of the buildings. Much is automated. After all, it's over 4000 fucking meters. Not much can live there. Not much does. Workers there have to acclimate themselves.

In general, putting native belief systems in that category is not a winning strategy with them.

And that's not the case I was making to Ellisonz. I remarked on the man's presentation and believe he was speaking about much more than religion.

It appeared to be more about sovereignty and the theft of the Hawaiian islands by westerners in some eyes. They may term it colonialism, imperialism, racism or corruption. A backlash is growing, acknowledged by the United Nations.

The speaker and other natives claimed continued development is polluting the ocean that they make their living from. I made the case also, in my reply to him as an Hawaiian native, that for the greater good this might have to be done.

What if TMT prevents the larger catastrophes that some ancient traditions predict is coming?

But they don't believe those who are coming in. As to the conditions on the site, you may be right, it's inimicable to human or other life forms, but they don't care. They consider it to be their property.

That's all I was saying. As I said, you might want to take up the religion issue with Ellisonz as he lives among these folks, not me. Personally, I have no objection if the operations of the facility don't pollute. But I am of the dominant culture in the USA.

As to the natives owning the land. I would suggest they take that up with the federal government. Alas, it is likely that that ship has long ago sailed. I don't know what to say about that. But demonstrating at this point about this issue seems to be a bit late in that context, especially since the fucking observatory has been there since the 60's.

Why now? Certainly not because of a volcano god, although some are arguing along those lines... Holy ground and all. Well, that is a non-starter given the site's history.

I do not have much sympathy for their case. Maybe it is just how they are presenting it. But it does seem medieval when they talk about holy ground, especially when the damned observatory has been there for decades. Plus, it is the best on the planet!!!! ( in the northern hemisphere)

I would think that they would be proud of that.

The EIS states:

eom

eom

Do the Hawaiian people not have a legitimate grievance? How many telescopes should there be on Mauna Kea? How big? Is science all that matters or does it matter how science is done in ethical terms?

I support the construction of the scope. Especially on Mauna Kea. There are already roads and utilities there for the other scopes so we don.t have to cut a whole new road or build a power plant. The top of Mauna Kea is barren so there are no plants or animals being displaced. What's your problem?

There are numerous archeological sites and burials up there and this is an undisturbed area.



It also not devoid of fauna or flora according to the University of Hawaii:

We've been around a long time. We've touched every bit of land. We've left artifacts on every bit of land.

Why does this mountain deserve protection, while the land under your home did not?

Hawaiian's do not object to people having homes. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands is testament to that (you should Google). They do object to having one of the most sacred sites further desecrated though and it is a very reasonable objection that your argument circles.

Your argument comes down to sacred ground must be protected. Everywhere is sacred ground to someone. Why can we ignore other sacred ground claims, but must defer to this one?

Also, how come they did not protest all the other observatories that have been built? Yes, this one is bigger, but the objection is to disturbing the sacred ground at all, not "this building is bigger".

Could we not explain to them that we wish to speak to ours as well?

eom

Why? What will this telescope do that is so important?

"Whatever despoilment may occur by the construction of these telescopes has already occurred."

That's not true. This is an area of the summit where there is no present construction.

Ye of little faith! (Or possibly too much on faith alone.)

Science is the best thing humans have ever come up with. I do not know where volcano deities fit into things, but I would wager that they never cured any diseases, nor discovered a new planet, nor discovered how life evolved, etc.

And by the way, after the TMT is built, there will still be native life on the summit of Mauna Kea. Scientists know that shit, too.

And as another has suggested, the TMT is all about finding origins, or new life. Either would utterly change the world overnight. One thing that would go away is any sense that humans are in anyway special, which has been the doom on humankind. Of course, there have always been holy men -- Yes, MEN! -- who would argue against such things.

You talk like the TMT is blasphemy. I see it as a revelation, so to speak.

"Science is the best thing humans have ever come up with."

I think many would dispute that. What about compassion?

"there will still be native life on the summit of Mauna Kea."

I never said there wouldn't. You cannot build something that big up there and not have an impact.

"And as another has suggested, the TMT is all about finding origins, or new life. Either would utterly change the world overnight."

No it wouldn't. It will just satisfy the ambitions of some people to try to know everything.

I'm not putting this is theological terms. I'm putting it in terms of governance and respect.

You appear to be woefully ignorant of science.

Science is not knowledge, or data. It is a methodology by which one can know things, even though one cannot know them perfectly.

Note that this is the complete opposite to those who claim to know volcano deities, or any other.

The TMT is needed because science does not know and there is so much more to know. And humans are a very curious species. That gives rise to both volcano deities and Thirty Meter Telescopes, and for the same damned reasons. I would think the volcano deities would approve. I cannot believe that they would demand a virgin sacrifice. What better than a bigger eye into the universe's origin?

And it's not like they are going to be building condominiums up there. The telescope will be operated from other locations, nowhere near the summit -- often thousands of miles away. The impact will be minimal.

So relax, and enjoy the incredible results that come from this incredible scientific and technological achievement.

Have you ever downloaded a Hubble Space Telescope picture? The TMT will make it look pale.

Um no. I am very well-educated, including in science. I understand science, and I understand "scientists" quite well.

You should resist the need to engage in personal attacks. Doing so will make you more persuasive.

"The impact will be minimal."

Yeah that's just not true. Litigation in federal courts has established that the development on Mauna Kea has had significant impact:

What are these cultural impacts. (I also notice that you continue to combine the cultural with the biological argument. Not so sure what to make of that.)

I want to read specifically about these cultural things. Please enlighten me so that I might understand why they might be important. It seems to me that these protests might be a fringe group, like those protesting the LHC, and other big science projects. In my years in science they have always been around. Science generally listens to such arguments, but when their arguments don't hold up, well, you know.

But I do not think the Mauna Kea summit as a holy site is going to win the day. If there is an environmental argument I am sure the scientists will listen with open ears and make accommodations. But the way to do this is not by erecting holy shrines on the summit or blocking access.

Sorry about the virgin in the volcano remark. But I just wanted you to understand that the volcano god holy site argument would be a non-starter with me, especially as the summit has had world class telescopes there for many decades. I apologize that I framed it in such a crass way. But equally you should know that such a cultural argument goes absolutely nowhere. That ship has long since sailed.

I do not know if we can come to an agreement, but I would like you to at least understand my position. I respect parts of your argument as you have presented it. I am sure that the scientists building the TMT are and will consider the environment. Once it's built, there will not likely be much traffic up there. All observations happen at much lower altitudes and often thousands of miles away. The altitude is not very conducive to life, except maybe lichens and bacteria, but certainly not physics grad students who end up doing much of the grunt work.

My best to you.

Legal opposition has been led by mainstream advocates and they state clear support for the protest.

From the letter at the petition supports:

Sorry. I reject these cultural pleas. They are mere pleas to appease magic gods, which nobody can demonstrate exist.

Furthermore, who is to say that these volcano gods would not want Hawaiian residents to know about life's origins in the cosmos.

Since you continued to mix arguments on both environment and culture I suspected it was really solely about culture. About volcano deities. This especially since at over 4,000 meters altitude there is not much environment there. But maybe the lichens need saving. At that altitude not even astronomy grad students work there very long, and there is always bottled oxygen available lest they pass out.

So I knew that it couldn't be about the environment, which as I stated is a barren wasteland, and which makes it a perfect place for world class telescopes.

But there are these people who think the mountain harbors a volcano god. So much for plate tectonics. It was a volcano god all this time.

Or maybe we ought to dedicate the most exquisite place in the northern hemisphere for astronomy to cutting edge science.

On the other hand, maybe we ought to tear down the telescopes and erect an edifice to the almighty volcano gods. (Virgin sacrifices apparently optional?) That way we can preserve ancient myths into the 21st century. It sounds like Ken Ham's Creation Museum in Kentucky. An edifice to ignorance.

And you are correct. I have absolutely no respect for your argument.

I am very sorry.

...I have posted ecological information elsewhere in this thread. There are 21 species of fauna and an equivalent amount of flora that have been observed in the area.

It is clear that you have no respect for the Hawaiian people, and are simply leaning on your own ideological views on religion. If you ever decide to come visit these amazing islands, I hope you will come with an open mind.

If you have no respect for the argument, why did you post in the thread? Why waste my time and yours going in circles?

Aloha

I have a rather less respect, or patience, for arguments based on rubbish, like volcano gods.

You have a rather blatant tell, my friend. You tipped your hand in your OP with your first pic, which was obviously a religious statement.

I was hoping that you were not going there because that would be illogical. But yup! That's where you ended up. Not with any ecological argument, but playing the culture card.

Some questions:

Do you actually think that the cutting edge scientists who care so much about science would willfully destroy a fragile ecosystem? Or do you think that they would locate their instrument on the most barren landscape possible? Where life struggles to cling onto life? Where grad students have to have oxygen bottles handy? Where little more than lichens flourish?

Your environmental arguments are vacuous. Be honest. This about the cultural objections, the ones most easily dispensed. Your first photo in your OP shows an obvious cultural artifact.

This is not at all about environment, because any scientist will attest to the fact that this is the one of the few places on the planet where there is no environment other than maybe lichens. Do you know what? That's why they build fucking world class telescopes there! And in the Atacama desert! And at the fucking South Pole! They build them where they have a clear view and where they do the least harm. The extent to which you do not understand this is the extent to which you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

These few areas, perfect for optical astronomy, are precious. Some people want to kill them for fucking volcano gods.

And give it up. At over 4,000 meters altitude there is little ecology. And after the TMT is built, I assure you that the lichens will still be there. It's not like the scientists are going to build condos up there. Not unless they start piping up oxygen. There's no budget for that, which is precisely why they use grad students.

Once the thing is built, there will be few people up there. It's over 4,000 fucking meters altitude! The only thing that lives there is lichens. If that. (Well, that and grad students. Save the lichens. Fuck the grad students!)

The TMT will be built. That's great.

As will the E-ELT in the Atacama desert. It will be about 10 meters larger than the TMT. But since it is in the Southern Hemisphere it has a different sky to look at. That's why we have two world class telescope sites. One North (Mauna Kea); one South (Atacama).

Get used to it.

Of course, they really won't care if their neighbor is a telescope. They'll probably just colonize the foundation.

"Adverse influence of the human activities associated with astronomy is not apparent. This assertion rests largely on a) the finding that construction and related activities have not fostered the establishment of introduced plants in the study area and, more importantly, b) our finding that the frequency of native plants near the road, observatories and other constructed facilities is about the same as at more distant locations within and outside the Astronomy Precinct when comparing similar substrates."

"This report includes a discussion of the difficulty of identification of lichens in the Mauna Kea environment and a preliminary analysis of lichen community structure and the environmental factors that may shape the communities.These findings are briefly presented in this section. The work of identifying the unidentified species is continuing. Identification is made difficult or impossible because many specimen lack reproductive structures and spores. It appears that the usually dry environment of the alpine environment on Mauna Kea supports reproduction in many lichen species only during atypical periods of higher than normal moisture . . . . [App. D-3 has the detailed lichen assessment]"

"No new lichens or mosses have become established in the [Observatory] area as a consequence of the construction or have used the structures as their habitat. The number of calciphiles in Hawaii is small because even though the basalts are basic the pH is close to neutrality. Therefore, though there are some small areas of elevated coral or lithified dunes in the Islands there is very little habitat for calciphiles."

"The checklist of the lichens in this survey notes 23 species, twelve more than observed during the 2008 study (Smith 2008) (Appendix 1) and two more than the study in 1982 (Smith et al., 1982). The difference between the two recent studies is due to expanding the studying area down to 13,000 ft, a recommendation of the 2008 study, as well as including three sites on the western boundary of the area around Puu Poliahu. The three western sites were somewhat richer in species (at least three species were unique to this region of the study area) or had better developed thalli which better linked the depauperate specimens in the TMT area with species found at Hale Pohaku, e.g., Physcia dubia."

Or in this case building on them? I get your point but no one says why it's considered 'sacred ground'. Just because someone woke up one morning and decided?

It's always a balancing act between respect and science marching on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Sounds like Augusta National.

My heart soars.... I don't consider the landscape marred.

It's a big mountain. Surely there is a way to share it.

a few days ago. I was surprised and saddened that the site was going to be on native sacred ground.

Here is yet another example of some of the intent of the original federal "Religious Freedom" law from the '90s (that attempted to address native use of peyote, and what the native islanders are apparently trying to use for recognition of their sacred sites). The law was NOT intended to suddenly declare that "corporations are Christian people who recognize no others than Christians" and who can discriminate.

As a scientist by training and a hobbyist in many things including astronomy, I think sometimes in the quest for "science", "we" (editorial "we&quot lose sight of and/or marginalize the cultures of others (notably, those with non-human rights infringing practices).

...or at least a glimmer of it, which leaves you open to learning understanding.

I am appalled at the dismissiveness and arrogance of most of the rest. Claiming scientific enlightenment, they close their minds not just to the human impact, but even learning about the human impact.

Thank you for what you said.

since I first traveled to Hawai'i on vacation with my family. We were there for 10 days (thanks to a mistake by the travel agent booking the trip dates that resulted in giving us a free extra day)! Got to see Mt. Wai'ale'ale on Kaua'i without any clouds obscuring the summit, which was amazing itself along with Waimea canyon. The whole of the islands are beautiful and I know for the natives, the dynamic of these islands have special significance (including the oft-mentioned Pele, due to the big island continuing to renew itself through its volcanic activity).

Many of the natives were bitter back then and I expect are even more so now, and I don't blame them. The whole history behind what happened there that lead to it becoming a state, is something that makes one understand why the demand for independence from many quarters there.

Worth it? It may very well be.

Sorry.

This isn't science vs. no science. This is badly planned science being forced onto the sacred grounds of an indigenous people. I have yet to read a sound justification for why this will produce valuable science that can't be produced elsewhere. There is only one Mauna Kea.

atmospheric conditions make it one of a few very choice spots in the world. That's why it already has telescopes.

What are we supposed to learn? We don't know what we'll learn, that's why it's called learning. Our knowledge of the Universe has increased by several orders of magnitude in the past few decades. This is a fascinating time to be alive.

http://www.tmt.org/

What's "badly planned" about this, aside from the fact that you don't like where they're putting it?

How many telescopes should there be up there? How much of the summit should be covered? What's the limit? This project is as big as all the others combined. What happens when the next even bigger telescope is proposed? That's my critique of the planning; these questions aren't even considered.

"the climatalogical and atmospheric conditions make it one of a few very choice spots in the world."

I already know this, it's general knowledge. However, just because we can, should we? Is this mystery knowledge worth the probable environmental and cultural damage?

"In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same."

- Albert Einstein

And I have faith in these people to be able to build this thing with as minimal environmental impact as possible.

Look, you can't complain that "it's as big as all the others combined" and also suggest we won't learn anything new. The reason we'll learn new things is because it is a bigger and better telescope.

Peering back 13 Billion years in time, you don't think we'll learn things? No, we don't know what we'll learn. Is that supposed to be a problem?

I'm sorry some people are upset by this, I really am. However I do believe the benefits for all people will outweigh the upset some feel over the choice of site.

Faith in "these people" isn't exactly a strong argument. With any big construction project you're going to have impact. There is no other Mauna Kea. This is a unique environment, every acre lost is an acre that cannot be returned the same.

Size does not necessarily correlate to goodness. Is bigger always better?

I don't see how "peering back 13 billion years in time" benefits the people of Hawaii. I don't see how that is some imperative, immediate priority. It will not create a cure for cancer or some other tangible benefit. What we will learn can likely be learned other ways with less harm.

telescopes, fairly often it is.

You don't see the benefit. Let's put it this way- this is sacred ground, right? Or important ground? Has special meaning as per the origin legend of the people of Hawaii?

Fine, fair enough. However, "peering back 13 billion years in time" tells us about the ACTUAL origin of all of us- Hawaiians and everyone (and everything) else. The actual truth, facts, knowledge, which is sacred too. Sacred ground? The teeming young galaxies bursting with barely cooled energy from the big bang, potentially holding informational keys to the mystery of all our existence, that's not "sacred ground"?

I think everyone- all humankind- benefits from knowledge and learning. THAT to me is sacred.

Like I said, I'm sorry some people are upset but I strongly support this going forward. Sorry. You're not going to convince me, and I suspect the same is true vice-versa.

Knowledge of our universe is very important.

And doctors have the same type of digital detectors to help cure cancers and other things. They were developed by astronomers.

The TMT will undoubtedly have other new technologies which can be used across many disciplines. This is always what happens with these projects. There are always numerous paybacks. (E.G., the WWW was invented at CERN, where the LHC is about to restart at twice its previous power. I would hope that you wouldn't oppose that project.)

BTW, astronomy can save the planet by detecting Earth crossing asteroids which might impact the planet. The reason the non-avian dinosaurs are extinct is that they did not have astronomy and a space program.

My regards.

And every single telescope is important. The more warning we get, the better.

Even if this telescope isn't searching for nearby objects, it may still find something others have missed.

Bonus: We are going to see some amazing things!

Please provide a source for that claim. Please also provide a source for the claim that this will "undoubtedly" lead to new technologies. Without sourcing, these are just empty, unscientific claims.

My regards.

Don't be obtuse. If whatever god doesn't really
like the scope than let it make the volcano erupt.

Being against this tool is just beyond silly bordering
on stupid.

Also, just because YOU don't see a benefit doesn't mean there isn't one.

And I'm not a utilitarian, so I don't think all science must provide an immediate, tangible benefit. Basic science often goes unfunded because of someone demanding an immediate product to be produced. Knowing more about how our universe is structured and works is plenty of benefit in my eyes.

And honestly Mauna Kea is HUGE. In the scheme of things, this is occupying an extremely small part of it.

I think it is rather silly to suppose this is the only place in the northern hemisphere to build it. This is where they would like to build it. Furthermore, there are many telescopes in space and in other very good places on land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observatories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes

I am not saying don't study this, I am saying study it ethically. This construction is unethical. If the best scientific proposal they have is to severely impact the summit of Mauna Kea, they are not very good scientists.

Just what makes it "sacred"?

It'll enable us to see much further to the origin of the universe than ever before. Another telescope, even larger, is being built in Chile by a European consortium, but thanks to things like axial tilt, you need observations from both hemispheres. Mauna Kea is the best location in the Northern Hemisphere thanks to elevation and existing infrastructure.

Couldn't this telescope be seen as a kind of a tribute to nature... A kind of temple of observation?

I mean, every spot on the Earth is unique, right?

And that a state of war exists between the Kingdom and the US and that the desecration of Mauna Kea is a war crime.

Some recent discussion of the question of annexation:

http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/on-annexation-of-hawaii-justice-scalia-fails-constitutionality-test/

Mauna Kea was "crown land," which was later termed "ceded land."

I'd also be willing to bet that there are some native Hawaiians involved in this project, too.

"I'd also be willing to bet that there are some native Hawaiians involved in this project, too."

You have no source for that claim. Even if you did, it doesn't change the fact that many are opposed.

I suspect that if there was universal Hawaiian opposition to this, as opposed to just some small groups, it wouldn't be happening.

The democratic process has not gone to its full conclusion. Please read the letter the petition supports. Legal contests are still ongoing.

There is nothing more democratic than the following, it is essential to our democracy:

I'm sure i could get 4,000 people to sign a petition to put Jerry Garcia on the 10 dollar bill. Doesnt mean it is going to happen.

It's about voters and about politicians realizing that they are losing votes.

I'm sure you could get signatures for that. I would replace Hamilton.

This is Hawaii. We are a very Blue and different state.

BTW - the nomination of a development lobbyist to head our Land Board and resources department failed. A petition opposing the nomination had 8500 signatures within a few days. It gave political cover:

http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/03/gov-ige-withdraws-carleton-ching-nomination/

You shouldn't underestimate the power of democracy. The petition has 13,500 signatures and likely a dozen or two because of this thread. This is the Democratic Underground, we believe in petitions, a right that is a written in our national sacraments.

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

(Edited to add: I think this thread is proof enough, of that)

Petition away, I guess we'll see.

Are the Hawai'ian people less important than the tribes of the continental US?

I support its construction.

Now I'll go look for a petition I can sign to continue it unimpeded.

so, no, I will not sign.

We must only undertake such projects with the consensus of the surrounding communities. It is apparent we have not done so here.

Food for thought.

Or are we just begging (justifying) for forgiveness?

The objections are decades newer than the buildings.

When someone appeals to the notion that something similar has already been done in the past, so shut up about it now, or perhaps more generously "you had your chance decades ago", and uses that notion to claim there is a consensus tells me that person does not understand what a consensus is.

Disappointing.

when they come out of the blue decades after consensus was reached.

If this was such important holy ground, why didn't they fight for it decades ago?

One possibility is they were ignored. But they weren't ignored in this case. And even if they were ignored, there would be people who fought against every building on that mountain instead of only the latest one.

They were extremely disempowered at the time of statehood, and it took a new generation with a new point of view to start fighting back.

Salib is right to bring up consensus. The Hawaiians have a consensus culture. It's one of the things the haole majority culture of the US doesn't get about the President.

The governor has wisely called for a time out for a week, but apparently the talks are going to be between the University and the company that wants to build the telescope, if I understand correctly. The article did not say that representatives from the protesters would be there, and that would be crucial.

Incidentally, as I said to another poster, the fact that Hawaiians have a consensus culture is one of the things the majority American culture doesn't understand about President Obama.

The whole concept of "sacredness" is about experiencing awe, for many of us astronomy delivers the most profound feeling of awe we ever experience.

Stonehenge is a good example of a site that is sacred ground and yet the structure was basically an astronomical instrument of the ancients, if Stonehenge today was the best place to put a modern astronomical instrument I'd be in favor of that too.

...in order to secure permission?

I think I read that the Sky God was believed to live on the summit of the volcano, is there a better way of honoring the Sky God than studying his handiwork, the sky?

The only way to find out is to make the argument in good faith, and then stand back respectfully and observe the results of their decision, after they have had time to take this argument into consideration.