Live the Dream, Make the Change, Move to Pitcairn Island (2018)
immigration.gov.pn
immigration.gov.pn
I've been to the island and I'm active in the Pitcairn community here in New Zealand. The island is a vibrant community of people working. When I was there they were very warm and welcoming. The island itself is small but with mountainous areas and there is much to see and do. The vibe on the island is very similar to any small rural town in New Zealand.
I have photos of the trip if anyone is interested http://cd.pn/pn2012/
Internet was terrible at the time. I wrote about it here: https://bluishcoder.co.nz/2012/05/29/pitcairn-island-and-slo...
It has improved but is still relatively slow and expensive.
Won’t cost spacex anything to provide Internet to tiny islands like this
Remote areas = Mostly people, that can't actually afford it.
Does Starlink support this or is it against their interest?
Some of the islanders have small businesses - one runs a Pizza place with regular pizza nights.
Costs of living are low due to growing and catching your own food.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Did any of your family take Queen Victoria's offer and move to Norfolk Island when things got rough on Pitcairn 165 years ago?
Do you know if kava and taro grow there?
Kava doesn't seed so has trouble growing in the wild unless conditions are perfect, in which case ancient stands of them might still be alive. In Hawaii, long after the missionaries tried to eradicate kava, some of the old cultivars were rediscovered in the 90's from old kava stands found growing deep in national park forests.
But yes if you did find kava growing there, it would be a rare cultivar and given its long shelf-life once dried and packaged, a great crop to commercialise on that island.
The people living there are mostly descendants of the Bounty mutineers and their captives. There has been a long sad history of sexual abuse, with one third of the island's male population being convicted and imprisoned in the early 2000s. They were let out of prison to do jobs, such as unloading cargo ships, during the day because the island could not function otherwise.
There really are not many jobs to be had so migrants are not allowed to take local jobs, I guess they have to create a new job for themselves. According to Wikipedia they used to get 700 enquires a year for migration but nobody ever actually applied.
I am surprised nobody has tried using it as a stepping stone to get into New Zealand, because the Islanders can live and work indefinitely in New Zealand if they are of good character and good health.
Edit: I did not want to sound disrespectful so I edited my comment slightly.
I certainly meant no disrespect to you or your family. Maybe it has improved since the court cases? If the people, especially the woman, there are happy I am very glad to hear it. I edited my comment out of respect.
> Many administration aspects are managed from New Zealand
The police are New Zealand police.
Yes, the police are often New Zealand police. The Doctor, Teacher and Police positions are advertised in NZ and UK.
Oof. That would be crazy making.
If you are actively looking for such, you will find it -- even if you have to read in a lot that isn't really there. Add in cross cultural misunderstanding and this has to be a pretty negative experience for locals.
One downside, in my opinion, of the way the government jobs are advertised is they attract missionaries and people who want to "save" the islanders from their lives. I remember watching a presentation one official did before going to the island - it was a presentation to their church group, about the opportunity they had to save the islanders, etc which seemed to me inappropriate for someone who is supposed to be there to do a specific job - in this case the teaching position.
Nope, no interest in what actually happened to you that you ended up so poor. Nope, it couldn't have anything to do with systemic issues. You just must be a bad person.
I'm sorry we still do this so much throughout the world.
1/3 of the male population at the time is, what I think most would agree, "riddled with". I'm certainly biased against huge populations of abusers, yes.
> Just like when similar events happen in other places around the world, and then the world moves on, my belief is that the entire island shouldn't be punished for what happened for all eternity.
I guess it's for each individual person to decide how long to be put off by such a (relative to the size of the population) wide-spread issue.
And though news articles talk about 1/3 of the males, they usually don't mention what percentage it was of the _adult_ males. According to this Guardian article[1], it was 7/12 of the men on the island (58%), and that's not including the man convicted in 2016. A meeting of women on the island consisting of "almost the entire adult female population of Pitcairn"[2] (13 women) also defended the actions as just being part of the island's way of life.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/former-pitcair...
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/growing...
This sounds really bad, until you realise one-third of the male population is 7 people.
You are correct, but its not an accurate use of statistics.
Nope, that's what phrase "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is about. You're a manipulator.
And I propose that it being "just" 7 doesn't change the intent of "1/3" at all.
> I conclude you were writing that in bad faith to promote some kind of agenda of yours (which is confirmed by the history of your posts).
My agenda is to obviously raise awareness that an island that aids sexual abusers is bad. Your agenda must be to suppress the dissemination of information pertaining to sexual abuse, I guess. I'm kind of disgusted at that behavior, tbh.
This is another example of you using emotive phrases to imply a narrative that is not true. Pitcairn Island does not aid sexual abusers. Abuse is abhorrent. Trials were held, people were convicted. I'm not sure what is different to how this is handled anywhere else in the world.
So you're saying the Mayor didn't get convicted, then?
> Pitcairn Island does not aid sexual abusers
The mayor.
> . Abuse is abhorrent. Trials were held, people were convicted. I'm not sure what is different to how this is handled anywhere else in the world.
The difference is the absolutely astounding ratio.
Also it’s perfectly valid statistics.
If you have a medical emergency while in places like this, you may be in serious trouble. Even in places like Antarctica, and even at the top of Mount Everest, we have modern medical facilities within range and helicopters that can come grab you, weather permitting.
Out here, a heart attack or stroke brings on a different level of scary, knowing you are going to have to cross your fingers in the same way as generations have in the past. There is no-one sending in a flight to get you off the island. If you happen to survive past the initial event, it's going to be a while before you see a specialist!
Of course, this would be the same conditions the original explorers to land here lived under, and in fact most of humanity for the majority of human history. But it is not something people tend to think about too much these days when we're generally at least within distance of where helicopters and planes can reach.
The FAQ even covers it ...
> Note that if a medical evacuation is required, transport may not be quickly available, as outside our supply ship schedule the island has to rely on passing vessels.
Even for something like a broken hip, just hope they have enough pain medication on hand until that next ship arrives. Which, if it's on schedule, might be in 3 months.
Another incident with an islander having a medical issue, a broadcast was put out. There were no ships in the area. The situation was dire so they travelled to Mangareva by island longboat - two days over the open ocean - where he eventually was able to be medivacced to Tahiti.
Remote island life, with no airport, is definitely risky at times.
A helicopter has landed on the summit of Everest ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Delsalle ) but that was a record attempt right on the edge of what is possible. I don't think they would have had enough margin to rescue anyone.
Even when I climbed Mera Peak (~21,000 feet) we were told there was no hope of a helicopter coming for us at the higher altitudes.
Not that this isn't extremely dangerous in its own right, but at least there is the option, however slight it may be under the current conditions, of getting to a lower altitude where the helicopter or a rescue climb can get to you. This may be even more feasible if climbing with a group who can help get you lower.
On Pitcairn, you simply aren't leaving in any reasonable timeframe. If you survive a heart attack but it only gives you 2 weeks to live without surgery, and the next ship is due in 3 months and the closest freighter is 3 weeks away, you're going to die.
It's more similar to being on the moon than on a mountain.
And this did indeed happen. One of our group had serious altitude issues. He had to be repressurised in a Gamow bag ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_hyperbaric_bag ) until he had recovered enough to get him down to where a helicopter could evacuate him. One of the Sherpas ran a in a few hours a distance that it took us days to walk, so that he could telephone for the helicopter. Lucky for him it happened before the summit attempt. One of our group also had an aneurysm on the way down (she survived). High places are dangerous!
>It's more similar to being on the moon than on a mountain.
Probably much worse than Mera Peak. But if you have a heart attack on the summit of Everest, you're almost certainly going to die.
Pitcairn Islands - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9116933 - Feb 2015 (1 comment)
But here are related articles that have been posted in the past (without comments):
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/12/16/pitcairn_islan...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/01/pitcairn200801
https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231033/http://www.winthr...
I would say if you're interested in moving to an autonomous region I'd for sure check out Svalbard first, although they're undergoing climate change and it's hard for foreigners to get land there.
People have applied for the ability to live there but the reality is that there are many people dreaming of an idyllic lifestyle but when faced with the realisation of how hard they have to work to survive on a remote island and having to integrate into an established community they don't progress further.
Although archaeologists believe that Polynesians were living on Pitcairn as late as the 15th century, the islands were uninhabited when they were rediscovered by Europeans.
In 1790, nine of the mutineers from the Bounty, along with the native Tahitian men and women who were with them (six men, eleven women, and a baby girl), settled on Pitcairn Island and set fire to the Bounty.
So that's likely why you've heard of them, though I don't think I've ever read Mutiny on the Bounty nor seen it retold in film or similar.
I currently have an image of Midway on my laptop and I've been thinking about how remote islands end up with life. They typically emerge from the ocean as a barren outcropping of rock. Birds stop and rest there, leaving behind poo and sometimes seeds in the poo sprout.
Coconuts can float in salt water for long periods and are typically the first trees found on remote islands. Sometimes insects get carried there on the winds of powerful storms and then diversify into a separate species because they can't fly far enough to leave again on their own steam.
I wonder what we might learn from small islands that might help humans resolve their problems and survive climate change.
The histories of Pitcairn are kept alive through cultural studies taught by the islanders to the school kids.
Here's a great account of Tupaia's map: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223344.2018.1...
Also see the books in my sibling comment.
It also seems like most people there grow their own food. That takes time when does for self-sufficiency.
And it looks like there is no property currently for sale along with limited rental options. You basically have to build your own house (with only supplies coming it every 3 months)
Solving the internet problem is only the tip of the iceberg for remote working there, there are easier locales to be a remote worker in with similar living costs but easier logistics.
"How do people travel to/from Pitcairn? The Government of Pitcairn Islands charters a passenger/cargo vessel. This currently carries supplies and passengers to the island every three months."
How do you visit for only 14 days if there is no airport and the ship only comes every three months?
For a small yacht, even in the lee of the island, it would be difficult to stay for long, and you'd have to be prepared to leave whenever the weather changed.
There were many private yachts visiting the island while I was there, coming and staying for a few days then leaving.
But yeah, the island does have a dark past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-25.0712126,-130.1117952,3998m/...
Not the idyllic sandy beach of most tropical islands though.
- quick facts about Pitcairn [0] (e.g. 47 people, 47 sq.km of surface, British Overseas Territory)
- what kind of visa you will grant (permanent resident?)
- is there a path to citizenship / passport, and if so, how long it would take?
- is there any special agreement with the UK? e.g. UK passport after 5 years of residence.
- income tax? capital gains tax?
- how easy is it to setup a business in Pitcairn?
In any case, I plaud the effort to try to repopulate this island.
There's something about human communities where under a certain size (200? 1000?), many things become really difficult, such as having key expertise "in house" (doctor, mechanician, electrician, plumber, etc), as well as being able to maintain a good "vibe" in the community.
My guess is that 47 people on a 47 sq. km island are a bit on the low end. Hopefully they will manage to attract more people over the years.
They might want to consider asking a government (UK? New Zealand?) to help them with some budget and an immigration program that could easily attract at least tens of people.
The population has been in the low hundreds in the past, and population pressure was one of the reasons for the 1831 migration to Tahiti and the 1856 migration to Norfolk.
I agree more information on the website would be good.
It's like a company which pays peanuts having 80% of their positions open and complaining about not being able to find new employees and "HR (desperately) searching".
So, fundamentally everything is going the right way on Pitcairn: A harsh place gets depopulated. And someone is spinning the fairytale and roses story, because it's one of the rare things there is to do (a payed (government) job on the island).
It's never been important enough militarily for anybody to build an airport. It's mountainous, with no big flat areas, so that's a big earthmoving job. It's at least 1500 miles to anywhere, so a small bush STOL plane can't make the hop.
So who wants to spend $100 million on their post-apocalypse hideout?
Not just that. Other comments mention presence of some kind of external governance with "officials" intrusively poking their noses into someone else's business. Doesn't sound very libertarian if you ask me. On the other hand, reforms should be easier in a community of 50 people than in a country of hundred millions. Though they depend on UK's favours which complicates things.
This became such an accepted narrative, that it is hard to correct (I just did) and gets pushed and used else/everywhere, like here, in a small island: Pitcairn.
Something is wrong with the place itself: "As of 2012, just two children had been born on Pitcairn in the 21 years prior."
Which is also shown in the absolute migration numbers: "For a recent survey that contacted hundreds of islanders who have left Pitcairn over the years, only 33 participated and just 3 expressed a desire to return."
It's like a company which pays peanuts having 80% of their positions open and complaining about not being able to find new employees and "HR (desperately) searching".
The article is out of the category that HR pulls all the time ala "Why you should work at place XYZ". But the reality is, that they only hire one specific person out of 100, that has exactly the skill they need.
So, fundamentally everything is going the right way on Pitcairn: A harsh place gets depopulated. And someone is spinning the fairytale and roses story, because it's one of the rare things there is to do: A payed (government) job on the island.
And: Everyone is just so isolated on that island and super-welcoming (of course) to someone new (and nice, ... he needs to be "a nice chap") arriving, because... excitement.