������Ƶ

We have set adrift through time and space at the mercy of dividing currents, which thrust us in seemingly countless directions. Our bearing is unknown and our path is rife with tribulation, but we still face the horizon, searching for the dawning of new hope. Such is the unified position being offered by those prominent voices in support of human kind’s advancement, on every side of the Thirty Meter Telescope argument – that we must act in the best interest of human kind.

Therein lies an almost impossible question to answer: what exactly is in the best interest of human kind? How can we, the people of Earth, determine what is in our best interest when we are so diverse in our identity? The United Nations, through numerous human rights mechanisms and multi-lateral treaties, has evidence international accord for what is considered to be an entire body of fundamental human rights. Culture is one such fundamental human right.

However, not every group of people on Earth is represented by the UN – Kanaka Maoli are one of them. Even within UN membership, not all states are in agreement. So, what exactly is, in the best interest of human kind? Maybe, life? The ability that human kind should live on?

Amid the discourse surrounding the TMT, many in support have banded behind the notion that construction of the TMT, atop Mauna Kea, would be beneficial to the survival of human kind. This “sinking ship fallacy,” at its foundation, argues that Earth is on a downward spiral toward destruction and that humanity should look to the stars for a new home, so that future generations may live on, post-Earth.

If indeed Earth is on a downward spiral, then how exactly did that happen? The current climate crisis isn’t a natural phenomena – it’s a man-made disaster as a result of human kind’s rapid and very irresponsible industrialization.

The sinking ship fallacy seems to argue that our ship (Earth) is sinking, so the only option for us is to stare at that horizon in the hope of finding another ship to inhabit – and do nothing more. The fallacy ignores the fact that if there’s a hole in our ship, we put it there because we weren’t taking care of it. It also ignores the need for us to start patching this ship up, if we are to last long enough to find a new home.

What of this destructive over-consuming culture that humanity has come to nurture? If we are lucky to survive the destruction of Earth, should we take that destructive culture to our new home?

This is the main issue surrounding Mauna Kea: Sustainability/Responsibility vs. Unsustainability/Irresponsibility.

Local news media and even many TMT proponents have clouded the issue – they have largely and fallaciously framed it as Kanaka Maoli culture vs. Science; Regression vs. Progression. This kind of posturing, whether intended or not, marginalizes the far-reaching significance and efficiency of Kanaka Maoli culture here in the Hawaiian Islands.

Social media has ignited with world-wide support for the protection of Mauna Kea. The underlying message is one in support of both Kanaka Maoli cultures and the preservation, conservation, and perpetuation of the natural environment (Aina). This is clearly evidence by a ubiquitous phrase seen in the countless banners/posters of Mauna Kea protectors and heard in their chants/cheers: “Aloha Aina! Malama Aina!”

The Kanaka Maoli culture of aloha aina/malama aina is one that identifies a mutualistic relationship between human beings and the natural world. It obligates human beings to protect the natural world. This is a Kanaka Maoli science – and Kanaka Maoli, who practice aloha aina/malama aina, are not opposed to western science/practice or modern technology, we’re opposed to irresponsible and unsustainable practices. Culture is dynamic. Things, like the use of technology in practice, change over time, but the underlying values remain the same – and that is what makes it a part of the culture.

To illustrate my point, if the Hawaiian Islands had the capacity to produce nuclear power, would we choose to utilize it? Or would we rather prefer to utilize open urban spaces (like rooftops, streets, parking lots, etc.) for solar power? The use of photovoltaic in urban environment (which we have a whole lot of) would have a substantially less negative impact on the natural environment and human health, than would nuclear power. As an aloha aina, I would support PV and oppose nuclear. We have options.

Construction of the TMT atop Mauna Kea is not the only option for humanity to gaze upon the stars. Mauna Kea is not the only option for the TMT. In addition, European Southern Observatory is currently constructing a larger telescope, the E-ELT, in Cerro Armazones, Chile.

So, why do Kanaka Maoli have to sacrifice a sustainable/responsible cultural practice, from time immemorial, for one that is unsustainable/irresponsible? Why do we, Kanaka Maoli, have to always be the ones that must jeopardize our cultural integrity for the next high-priced experimental project? (Here’s to looking at you, Honolulu Rail Transit).

Kanaka Maoli Aloha Aina love our culture; we love science; we love technology; and we love sustainable practices like protecting the natural environment. Here in the Hawaiian Islands, it’s hard for us to let our cultural practices carry us forward in every aspect of our lives because we are not in control of the socio-political-economic system that forces our compliance.

The #WeAreMaunaKea movement exemplifies our struggle – not just Kanaka Maoli Aloha Aina, but also non-Kanaka Maoli Aloha Aina – to reshape the way human kind has approached issues within our reach. Our responsibility to protect Earth and collectively reshape our values for the betterment of both human kind and our home is paramount to our future on other worlds.