Navajo Nation President Asks NASA to Delay Moon Launch Over Possible Human Remains (knau.org) 203
"Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren has asked NASA to delay a scheduled launch to the Moon that could include cremated remains," reports Arizona Public Radio station KNAU:
Nygren says he recently learned of the January 8 launch of the Vulcan Centaur carrying the Peregrine Mission One. The lander will carry some payloads from a company known to provide memorial services by shipping human cremated remains to the Moon. Nygren wants the launch delayed and the tribe consulted immediately. He noted the Moon is sacred to numerous Indigenous cultures and that depositing human remains on it is "tantamount to desecration."
NASA previously came under fire after the ashes of former geologist and planetary scientist Eugene Shoemaker were sent to the Moon in 1998. Then-Navajo Nation President Albert Hale said the action was a gross insensitivity to the beliefs of many Native Americans. NASA later apologized and promised to consult with tribes before authorizing any similar missions in the future.
NASA previously came under fire after the ashes of former geologist and planetary scientist Eugene Shoemaker were sent to the Moon in 1998. Then-Navajo Nation President Albert Hale said the action was a gross insensitivity to the beliefs of many Native Americans. NASA later apologized and promised to consult with tribes before authorizing any similar missions in the future.
Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so Native Americans own the Moon now? Lol... This is what happens when you're "sensitive to beliefs".
Re: Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, next thing you know, they're going to block any sort of Moon base from being built there. "Because that's insensitive to our beliefs!"
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how many astronauts will be taking dumps on the moon if there's a moon base!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Ownership (Score:5, Funny)
No, not that kind of Indian.
Re: (Score:2)
You are asking to get cancelled, my man! :)
Re: Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Classic shakedown, it's insensitive until you hand over the $$$.
Re: (Score:2)
Eggsactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems simple enough to resolve (Score:2)
Have the meeting to discuss terms of the property dispute on the moon. I strongly suspect one party will be a no-show.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm writing you in on the ballot in 2024.
Yeah, burying respectfully is "desecration"? (Score:2)
Not what you want != desecration. We need an AI with definitions to point out how STUPID they are.
Re:Ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what happens when you're "sensitive to beliefs".
What has happened is: people who don't like something have said they don't like it. That is a healthy attribute of society, not a symptom of rot, You are confusing sensitivity with subservience.
(And if you're butthurt that Native Americans are claiming dominion over a bunch of real estate that they don't inhabit and have no relationship with, then I have a wild and true story to share with you!)
Re:Ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Are they going to complain when other nations send stuff to the moon as well? NASA might listen, but the ESA? Japanese private companies? India? China?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ownership (Score:4)
Japanese private companies? India? China?
The fun thing with that is the Moon is a deity for several million Japanese [wikipedia.org], Indian [wikipedia.org], and Chinese [wikipedia.org] people, and they don't mind any of that, at all. In fact, they name their Moon crafts after their respective, currently worshipped mythological deities and spiritual entities: Kaguya [wikipedia.org] and Hiten [wikipedia.org] (Japan), Chandra (India), Chang'e and Queqiao [wikipedia.org] (China).
As such, I'd suggest a global vote by Moon worshippers to determine what the Moon-as-sacred consensus on the scientific and technological exploration of His/Her/Hir body is. My hunch is over 90% of them would vote "yes".
Re:Ownership (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Ownership (Score:3)
The Catholics may disagree⦠as they have a Bishop of the Moon: https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re: Ownership (Score:2)
There is a bishop of New York too, but that doesnâ(TM)t imply that Catholics claim ownership of New York!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, so Native Americans own the Moon now? Lol... This is what happens when you're "sensitive to beliefs".
Considering what a relatively short period of time humans have been in the Americas compared to people in Africa, Asia, and Europe, I say the Navaho are near last in line to claim anything about the moon.
Re: (Score:3)
The Moon belongs to everyone on Earth, and a company that wants to sprinkle human remains need to get the entire world's permission.
Re:Ownership (Score:4, Informative)
How about NASA sticks to what it's ostensibly supposed to do; scientific research & development into understanding & implementing space exploration?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not the sacredness of the moon to Native Americans but the continual lying of the USA Federal Government and it's Agencies to indigenous groups and citizens.
As usual, White Man Speaks With Forked Tongue!
Re: (Score:2)
When do the casinos open?
Re:Ownership (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, give it a rest. 150 million were executed because of totalitarian dictatorships, not because they were atheist. There are plenty of examples of atheist countries that don't murder millions of their citizens. Both Sweden and Japan come to mind. Japan is 86% atheist. Sweden is 78%.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of examples of atheist countries that don't murder millions of their citizens.
Ditto for religious countries. Beliefs, of any sort, can lead to murdering millions of people, but that's an uncommon occurrence. More often than not, believers aren't of the mega-murdering mentality.
Japan is 86% atheist.
That's an often-quoted reference, but it's incorrect. In Japanese expressions such as "Are you religious?" and variations are understood as meaning holding a profound commitment to a religion and its dogmas, on par with that of a priest, so when most Japanese hear that question they reply "no" the same way, e.g
Re: Ownership (Score:2)
Slight correction, anybody who answers "no" to any question in Japan is considered to be rude. If you asked "are you religious?" they might in turn ask "which religion?" whilst having various Shinto artifacts in their home. And that is as close to a "no" answer as you'll likely get.
Re: Ownership (Score:2)
Oh, give it a rest. 150 million were executed because of totalitarian dictatorships, not because they were atheist.
Communism is indistinguishable from any other religion. It comes complete with an origin story (the so called "primitive communism") and a promise of the end being some kind of paradise on earth.
will they delay it? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:will they delay it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are those voices indigenous to the moon?
If not, why should they be privileged in the discussions you mention?
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think they should be privileged in the conversation, that would be weird.
But included? Yes. Especially since NASA said they would include them the last time this came up.
Re: (Score:2)
The Navajo nation had a population of about 165,000. Unless you want every other community of that size to also have a voice in the discussion, you're asking for them to be privileged. The county where I live has a population of 1.1 million; do we get 6 to 7 times the voice of the Navajo nation?
Besides your idea that NASA previously said they should be included, what's one actual good reason for them to be part of the discussion?
Re:will they delay it? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they'd told them to go pound sand the first time, they wouldn't be having this problem now. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.
Yep you see that everywhere. From New Zealand's Marui population laying native title claim to spectrum licenses for 5G, to Australian's Aboriginals blocking a gas pipeline being built in the ocean at a depth of 40m on native title grounds (tell me again how deep you can dive buddy before you go claiming that area is sacred to you).
Re: (Score:2)
Was it teriyaki style [youtube.com]?
Olympian Bias (Score:2)
There were complaints about the Christian dogma broadcast by Apollo 10
You mean that was considered worse than naming the entire series of missions about a Greek/Roman god Apollo? Not to mention the Roman gods used to name the planets. Perhaps if those of us who don't believe in the Olympian/Roman gods can ignore this display of religious fervour then I think it's fine to expect others to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's the difference between historical naming and dead religions, and the current most common one in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I recall an amusing interview of a member of the International Astronomical Union who said about naming celestial bodies that for a dead god 3000 years was ok.
Re: (Score:2)
"There were complaints about the Christian dogma broadcast by Apollo 10"
I think it was Apollo 8, where the astronauts read from Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...
You can hear the recording on "The Songs of Distant Earth" by Mike Oldfield.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like somebody forgot to eat their hot grits before reminiscing!
Who owns the moon? (Score:3)
The moon is a rock in space. NASA at least has been there, planted a flag etc.
Shakedown (Score:2, Troll)
I'm all for reconciliation but sorry, that is not how it works.
Navajo own the moon ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot, maybe I shouldn't have been referring to my grandma as "nanna" all this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is conspicuously low on Futurama quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
We're whalers on the moon,
We carry a harpoon.
But there ain't no whales,
so we tell tall tales,
and sing our whaling tune!
Re: (Score:3)
I identify as Mesopotamian you insensitive clod!
Or for Pete's sake (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to abolish the belief in sky beings already. We know what the Moon is now ... it's not a night time being that comes out to scare you into submission. High interest rates are insensitive to my beliefs. Who do I talk to about putting a hold on them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to abolish the belief in sky beings already.
So, just to speak plainly, you believe we should strip people of their right to enjoy freedom of religion? And you don’t see a problem with abridging one of our most fundamental rights? I’d even go so far as to argue that for most laypeople the difference between a “sky being” and the oft-mentioned “experts” they say support whatever they believe is a distinction without difference, in that both are simply appeals to higher authority being repeated by people who have no f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And the way the suggestion was phrased was rude and shows nothing except the narrow-minded lack of tolerance for other people's beliefs that's so common among young atheists.
Re: (Score:2)
"So, just to speak plainly, you believe we should strip people of their right to enjoy freedom of religion?"
No, just don't bother others with it.
"And you donâ(TM)t see a problem with abridging one of our most fundamental rights?"
There's a right to speech and think what you want, not a right to be listened and adhered to.
"the difference between a âoesky beingâ and the oft-mentioned âoeexpertsâ ... by people who have no factual leg on which to stand."
We'll stick to the science enablin
Re: (Score:2)
We'll stick to the science enabling peer review and a foundation of evidence instead of fairy tales.
I was actually thinking of anti-vaxxers as a paradigmatic example of the line you’re referencing, hence why I said “experts” in scare quotes and said they had no factual leg on which to stand. I know I didn’t mention them or other such examples specifically, but I find it somewhat telling that you and several others took it as an attack on evidence-based beliefs, given that I said nothing of the sort.
Re: (Score:2)
To respond to myself: other examples I had in mind would include any form of conspiracy theorist, hero worshipper, homeopath, climate change deniers, etc., but more broadly anyone who simply believes the things that percolate in their echo chambers without critical thought or regard for objective truth.
And yes, that would include some people who are correct by happenstance, because regardless of whether someone is right or wrong, if they use bad math to come up with an answer, and they believe that answer o
Re: (Score:2)
And I never said it was an attack on science. It's just a statement.
Re: (Score:3)
the difference between a âoesky beingâ and the oft-mentioned âoeexpertsâ
stfu, nobody wants to be lectured by Jar-jar.
Re: (Score:2)
Believe whatever you like. But if your god interferes with reality, your god is wrong.
Re:Or for Pete's sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta disagree. If your god interferes with reality, we *all* better sit up and take notice.
On the other hand, if *you* try to interfere with reality on your god's behalf... I see no reason why anyone else should care about a god so powerless it can't even speak for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You have freedom of religion. Believe whatever you want. Other people do not have the right to force their religion on you, nor you on them. You should be thankful for that. Bad things come in places where that is not the case.
Agreed, hence my concern over the original post, which is suggesting that we should outlaw what you just described.
All criminal law is someone's morality (Score:3)
You don't like abortions to be restricted but someone else does? That's a legitimate matter of democratic debate with no clear answer since both sides are endorsing THEIR answer to the metaphysical question: 'when does a fetus become a human being?'.
Censorship? Of course you believe in censorship. You'd get very upset if your local tax payer funded library stocked lots of books proselyting for a faith. Yet from the conservative perspective the holding of material that endorses the beliefs of liberal atheist
Re: (Score:2)
It's time to abolish the belief in sky beings already.
Beats an invisible sky hook, on which to hang your beliefs.
A: "Hey, you're destroying the environment!"
B: "So?"
A: "Well, that hurts people!"
B: "And? Why should I care about that?"
A: "Well, er, because you just should, that's all!"
B: "But aren't I just some shambling blob of self reproducing matter?"
A: "Well, yes, but ... "
The moon is the unceded land of (Score:3)
Plot Twist (Score:2)
Just tell him about the SSP base on the Dark Side and how many deployed there have died already.
What would Uatu say? (Score:2)
Is derisive laughter OK? (Score:2)
If you can seriously state you have the right to control lunar access due to 'spiritual' rights, you should be ignored from that point forward whenever adults are talking.
I'd lay low right now (Score:2)
That moon looks like just the kind of place they'd put a reservation...
Time to end the fairytale shit (Score:4, Insightful)
There are NO FUCKING GODS.
It's just us.
Now deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Unacceptable!. Everyone knows king of the juice is Powerthirst [youtube.com].
I demand human sacrifices! (Score:2)
Establishment Clause (Score:2)
We don't care what you believe. We are not sponsoring your religious beliefs by giving you any special property rights. Either to the surface of the moon or the summit of Mauna Loa.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably meant Mauna Kea. (Mauna Loa is still active and not a great place for telescopes.)
I hadn't checked in on the Thirty Meter Telescope in a while. Sounds like those involved have agreed on long-term management of the mountaintop, in a way which may allow the project to go forward [astronomy.com]:
A silver lining of Covi
End this now (Score:3)
Sacred places like graveyards and churches are regularly moved or destroyed as necessary - has to be that way or the entire world would end up covered with untouchable sacred sites. I have no problem protecting places of special importance to a group, but the number of those places on land not owned by that group has to be limited.
Maybe this insane overreach, claiming rights 14 MILLION square miles of land, will cause people to rethink how to deal with this sort of claim in the future.
How bout no? (Score:2)
Or better yet, FUCK NO.
I claim the universe (Score:2)
Translated into English (Score:2)
"Nygren wants the launch delayed and the tribe consulted immediately about how many $millions of $dollars NASA needs to give us to, once again, to conveniently ignore our "sacred beliefs" in exchange for $money."
This does not affect Navajo in nay way (Score:2)
fucking idiot (Score:2)
When woo woo bullshit collides (Score:2)
First on moon (Score:2)
Americans were there first...so don't own it now?
Moon Reservations (Score:2)
Until they can actually launch and land shit with their own "sovereign" national resources, they should kindly shush while the big kids play.
I'm part native. (Score:2)
My grandfather spoke Navajo, I never found out why since he grew up on a Cherokee reservation, he didn't like talking about those things. He was from an era where being a half breed was a bad thing and he did what he could to hide it.
The moon belongs to us all.
White tribes, black tribes, brown tribes, yellow tribes, every people on the face of the planet has the moon in their beliefs. Even as a Christian I can at least show you where the moon was mentioned as placed by God in the Bible, and Christianity i
How much will it cost? (Score:2)
Maybe NASA should ask the tribe how much they want? If you get any numerical answer, then you know it's just a shakedown. Fun fact: Visiting the four-corners site used to be free in the 70s. Not any more. There is not a single human endeavor that doesn't involve money somewhere along the line.
Does the Navajo religion actually teach this? (Score:2)
Or is this Navajo president projecting his own views onto the beliefs of his ancestors?
My bet is that the Navajo traditions don't actually say anything about having a problem with human remains being deposited on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Long-term consequences? It's a barren rock. If launches were safer we should send all our hazardous waste there.
Re: Headline is bullshit (Score:2)
What if we wanted to put a housing development in, and itâ(TM)s littered with human remains?
Did you not see Poltergeist?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be interesting to create a story about something like that and how it all goes wrong, the nuclear waste cooks off and the moon goes out of orbit?
I could even see a series being based on that. It could last for 2 seasons, though the second one would probably suck.
Re: (Score:3)
For my money dropping human remains on the moon when we haven't thought about the long term effects seems like a bad idea. It's not a problem now but as space is more commercialized if it gets cheaper to put payloads into space we might end up littering to an absurd degree.
The moon is a dead space rock full of toxic dust. [mcgill.ca] There is no existing environment or ecosystem to preserve. The only real wastefulness here is that the money and resources involved in dumping human remains onto the moon could be put to better use back here on Earth, but that same argument can be made anytime someone with too much money does something stupid with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Just plow them under - we've got a long history of doing so here on Earth, whenever nobody is going to notice.
And so long as they're cremated I don't see any problem at all - we all eat, breathe, and shit peoples' cremated remains on a regular basis - it's not like the ash just vanishes when you scatter it on the wind.
What Effects? (Score:5, Insightful)
For my money dropping human remains on the moon when we haven't thought about the long term effects seems like a bad idea.
The moon's surface is a hard vacuum exposed to significant ionizing solar radiation. What long-term effects are you worried about? If the remains were not fully sterilized already they soon would be and there is no local ecosystem to worry about for the same reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
No, you want them to. Would be really wonderful to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, those who marked my original comment as trolling, you finally got something right! :D
NASA got distracted [Re:Please, oh woketards... (Score:2)
I will back the Navajos because NASA shouldn't be in the business of putting grave sites on the moon. They lost focus, creating unnecessary conflict. Get back to science!
Re: (Score:2)
It's Scientism at it's worst! :D
Re: (Score:2)
So you're not even sure what the word "science" means, and you can't differentiate it from engineering? And yet you bleet in defense of it?
Re: (Score:2)
The famously alt right NPR at it again?
Re: Isn't it ironic? (Score:2)