I am of Pitcairn descent. My grandmother was born there. I'm a descendant of the mutineers Fletcher Christian, John Mills and Edward Young, and the Tahitian women who went there, Mauatua, Vahineatua, To'ofaiti and Teraura.
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.
Yes, everyone on Pitcairn migrated to Norfolk. Later some families moved back to Pitcairn, including mine. The same thing happened in 1831 - everyone migrated to Tahiti. That was disastrous for the islanders though, many died of disease and they returned to Pitcairn eventually. See here for that story http://www.jps.auckland.ac.nz/document//Volume_68_1959/Volum...
Yes! I remember seeing photos of the person doing the google photography. Especially going down an area called "Down Rope" where some pre-european petroglyphs are. You basically have to cling to the side of a rock wall down the cliff to get there - dangerous and tiring! It's safe as long as you stick to the trail, and helpful to have a guide, but sometimes things go wrong https://jimmyaroundtheworld.blogspot.com/2010/09/life-and-de...
Can you answer more questions about the state of the infrastructure there like electricity and internet? On Wikipedia it says there's only one person in charge of the electricity and it goes off every night.
When I was there the power operated until 10pm at night. From that time homes would either run from personal generators, or batteries - to power refrigerators, lights, routers, etc. These days the homes have or are getting solar panels.
Except that in non-remote areas, there will be greater demand per area, and stations per area is the limiting factor. So I'm not sure they'd charge more in really isolated places than in places with higher density and bad service.
Can you just use one dish and then connect everyone to this one dish? Costs 100$ a month divided by all inhabitants. It makes sense to setup one dish and connect a couple of people to it. It does not make sense to setup one dish next to another.
Remote areas = Mostly people, that can't actually afford it.
Does Starlink support this or is it against their interest?
Do you happen to know why the wind turbine project didn't work out? It seems electricity currently comes from diesel generators, and there was a plan to get a wind turbine installed, but somehow it wasn't delivered?
My understanding is the UK government cancelled the scheme after the contractors failed to meet their deliverable dates and the costs ballooned. Effort is now going into solar power instead, with some houses already having panels installed.
There are government jobs - administration, post office, local council, maintenance of roads, buildings, etc. They make and sell crafts, honey, coffee, etc online and to cruise ships. The latter has taken a hit due to borders being closed during covid. See Pipco for an example https://www.pipco.pn
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.
Overseas remittances from family members in New Zealand and Australia play a big part in the economy. Also, Pitcairn Island used to have a stamp bureau selling stamps to overseas collectors.
More to the point, if the island is remote, and relatively self-sustaining, it seems like an alternative to New Zealand for those looking for a bolthole in the event of ecological or societal collapse. Jobs and income might not be the focus for people looking for this.
Great photos! What is the weather there during the year?
While I was visiting New Zealand I found out that weather can quickly change, and kiwi told me it is usual thing they even have a song "4 seasons in one day"...
It's usually pretty warm, 20-ish celcius. It got cold when I was there when a storm was passing through, dropping to about 12 celcius. It can get stormy but for the month I was there it was mostly sunshine with short showers. I'm not sure how different the rest of the year is though - I was there for April/May.
Taro grows, there's even an area called "Taro Ground". I'm a fan of kava and I know Tahiti has a kava tradition. I asked one of my cousins about kava on the island and they don't know of it growing there. Given that the island was populated previously by Polynesians it's possible there is wild kava growing there somewhere. Next time I go I'm keen to look out for it. It would be interesting to try and cultivate it and make it a crop for sale in the same way Honey, Coffee, etc has become a popular export item.
I just want to say that HN continues to surprise and amaze me. An article about pitcairn is upvoted (amazing enough in itself) and then we get a decendent of the original mutineers chime in and offers to contact their cousins on the island for specific answers.
That's great to hear. Yes, both those crops were "canoe plants" that Polynesians took with them wherever they went.
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.
This is partly administered by my country, New Zealand, although is not part of the Realm of New Zealand (New Zealand plus territories it controls), rather it is a British Overseas Territory.
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 dispute your words that the island is a "rather sad place". It is a place full of people living in a remote island but the place is a warm and vibrant community full of history. Not just the history of the mutiny, but the history of the Tahitian ancestry pre-mutiny. They have a local government where local laws are enacted but as you say, they are British ruled due to a an encounter in the 1838 of a British ship where the Pitcairners asked for some laws to be drafted. Many administration aspects are managed from New Zealand for convenience but it is not administered by New Zealand. The High Commissioner in Auckland is a represents the UK.
I would say a place that is both so small and so riddled with sexual abuse definitely qualifies as "rather sad". I think your bias/passion for its/your heritage might be skewing your perception. If 1/3 of the male population are convicted, I would assume the realities of who partook are actually much worse.
I'm definitely biased, I agree. I don't respond to discussions about the trials for a number of reasons. It's a sensitive issue. It brings out the worst in people. Statements like "riddled with sexual abuse" show your biases. I used to respond to such discussions in the past and I've learnt they're mostly filled with people who have a weird fascination with such events and no good comes from engaging. The trials have taken place, people charged, served their time, and the island is moving on. 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.
> Statements like "riddled with sexual abuse" show your biases.
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.
> If 1/3 of the male population are convicted, I would assume the realities of who partook are actually much worse.
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.
> I dispute your words that the island is a "rather sad place"
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
Yes, things have improved. The island is very much moving on from the events of the past. Pitcairn is quite possibly the most surveilled place in the world at the moment with the ratio of islanders to government officials whose remit is to report on anything they perceive as suspicious. It's frustrating to us that every time that Pitcairn is mentioned the "You may remember Pitcairn as the island where sex abuse trials happened" comes up. Part of this is due to the media interest in covering events in a remote island - you don't hear with every mention of other places in the world where bad things have happened because that doesn't have the allure of a remote mysterious island.
Yes, the police are often New Zealand police. The Doctor, Teacher and Police positions are advertised in NZ and UK.
officials whose remit is to report on anything they perceive as suspicious.
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.
When I was there I was having lunch with some of my cousins. I was chatting about what a great place it was to grow up, being able to be in the country, swimming, explore the island, etc. One of the officials popped in to say hi and overheard that part. They immediately said "What?! Kids are playing outside unsupervised?! That's how bad things happen, who were they, when did it happen." etc etc. I explained I was talking in the hypothetical and they left. We joked that we'd get a visit by the government social worker soon. Probably a coincidence but 5 minutes later the social worker comes in "Just passing by, thought I'd chat and see how things are going" lol.
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.
I was homeless for a few years. People do the same thing to homeless people: assume you are bad and wrong and stupid and need someone else to fix you.
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.
Just saying population 53 at present, so we are talking about like 8 guys? Doesn't seem reasonable to assume that long term history of this place will be defined by so few people.
It's absolutely an accurate use of statistics. One third of the male population was imprisoned for sexual abuse. Regardless of how many, wouldn't you want to know if 1/3 of the men around you are sexual abusers?
I never said that it's my (dis)agreement with you that makes you a manipulator. It's the way you frame your argument. You said "third of the population" but forgot to mention that it's just 7 people we're talking about which is a crucial addition. 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).
> You said "third of the population" but forgot to mention that it's just 7 people we're talking about which is a crucial addition.
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.
> My agenda is to obviously raise awareness that an island that aids sexual abusers is bad
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.
The idea of living on these remote islands fascinates me, especially in today's modern world where many on this planet are able to take certain conveniences for granted.
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.
A few years ago one of the islanders had appendicitis and the island doctor couldn't do anything. They put out a broadcast for ships in the area for help - eventually one was available and went to take him to Managreva, from there to fly to the hospital in Tahiti. Unfortunately he died during the voyage.
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.
Generally agreeing with you, just wanted to comment that in Antarctica you can't be grabbed by a helicopter (or plane) during a significant portion of the year. There is typically one doctor on the base who trains some of the other personal as "nurses". They have to essentially do everything from minor ailments to significant medical emergencies. There is actually stories about the doctor on the base having to perform an appendics removal on himself. This happened twice once on the Russian base and once on the French IIRC. You can look it up there's even photos.
>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.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
This is crazy this showed up on HN. Years ago I had a dream about Pitcairn island. When I woke up I was like, does that even exist? Not sure how my psyche channeled this one up. Then I started reading about it and things are pretty sad there. You can see on the Wikipedia site some really shocking info like there's only one older administrator of the electricity system there and not to mention all the awful abuse scandals. It was super surprising to me though to see that foreigners were welcomed here and that more people hadn't taken this offer up!
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.
I feel like a broken record, but just because things are different doesn't make it "sad". Sure, it doesn't have the mod cons of modern city life, but it has a lifestyle of growing your own food, fishing, building what you need and living in the country.
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.
Sorry about that, I shouldn't have put it that way, I was referring more to the history of the abuse scandals and not modern life that I'm unaware of, I didn't phrase it correctly at all. For sure the isolation isn't for everyone but any remote place would be that way.
From the Wikipedia article posted in one of the comments:
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.
There are Tahitian legends about Pitcairn Island, referred to as Hitiaurevareva, showing that there was travel to and from the island in the past. There are Mangarevan legends also. In the Tahitian legend of Rata, which would be familiar to NZ Māori and other Polynesian people, he goes from Tahiti to Pitcairn to rescue his mother. Tupaia who guided Captain Cook around the pacific, and who acted as translator, drew a map of the Islands he knew and visited and this included Pitcairn. Tupaia was a contempory of the Tahitian women who went on the Bounty to Pitcairn so he had been there in recent history before the Bounty arrived. One of the Tahitian men on the Bounty knew of the island and helped guide Fletcher there. I often wonder why no Polynesians went back after the Bounty settled.
The Tahitian legends are documented in the book "Ancient Tahiti" by Teuira Henry. "Ancient Tahitian Society" by Douglas Oliver also mentions it. "Vikings of the Sunrise" by Te Rangi Hīroa (Sir Peter Buck) mentions the Mangarevan legends. There's also other accounts around. I first saw it written on a sign at the archaeological remains of an old Marae in Mo'orea.
The histories of Pitcairn are kept alive through cultural studies taught by the islanders to the school kids.
One benefit is the time zone of Pitcairn is very close to North American Pacific time. Right now it's one hour earlier. Get your Starlink account and you're set.
Indeed. Starlink (with laser links when they get them) plus solar plus batteries (and backup generator), and you're set. Anyone who does remote-only work with a US typical income and is able to live relatively simply would be able to move there.
Yeah… good luck getting spare parts if your laptop goes down. Also, the power goes off at 10pm every day, you have to generate your own for the night.
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.
Well of course you wouldn’t pick such a remote locale for no reason. But with remote work, low latency satellite broadband, solar+battery+generator, now you can. It wasn’t a real option before unless you had a specific job at that site or were independently wealthy.
"You can visit without a visa for up to 14 days, while long-term visit visas are valid for up to 6 months.
"
"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?
If I recall correctly the supply ship goes a round trip between Pitcairn and Mangareva which means you can get off on Pitcairn and wait for it to come back from Mangareva. I went on a chartered yacht being operated by a Pitcairn based tourist venture. Choices then were to stay for 2 days or 11 days. I stayed for a month due to the charter yacht needing to leave and then return with a department of conservation employee to investigate a rat sighting on Henderson island.
There were many private yachts visiting the island while I was there, coming and staying for a few days then leaving.
It'd have to be a big private yacht, as Pitcairn has no sheltered harbours.
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.
Many smaller one-person yachts visit the island, they anchor offshore and get transport to the island via the islanders coming out on the longboat. Yachties stay overnight on their yacht for safety reasons - there have been incidents of them breaking away from their anchor.
The island looks beautiful, but I would worry about cabin fever, social isolation, emergency services and quality medical care. Also, there appear to be no beaches.
There are children on the island, and a school there. When they get to high school age they leave the island to attend school in New Zealand and return afterwards - or stay in NZ. At the time of my journey there was a child protection order on the island which means if you planned to take children under the age of 16 then you need to apply for a visa. Government jobs don't allow taking children. One of the unfortunate obstacles to people immigrating is there is no public long term plan that I've seen about when that order will be lifted.
I think the website is missing important information (or it's buried somewhere):
- 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.
Note that Pitcairn Island isn't 47 sq. km. That's the size of the combined islands in the Pitcairn area - Henderson, Ducie, Oeno and Pitcairn. Pitcairn Island itself is 3.2km long and 1.6km wide.
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.
You make a lot of typical western assumptions here and also assumptions because you have a migration background yourself ("they want to (re)populate the island" - Why would they "want that"? - Edit: Now I got you, but the island is just small and populated already and also: Populating a place (making babies) isn't a problem for most people ;-), they actually enjoy it and in the case with this island they even start very young :-O. The website offers relocation to a super-remote, poor and harsh place. It's 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. I think the "child rape" cases are rather a symptom: Life is hard, there is nothing to do. If your life expectancy is 25 years, then you rather reproduce early. Reproducing (populating) a place is not a problem. If it starts to be one ("As of 2012, just two children had been born on Pitcairn in the 21 years prior.") then something is wrong with the place itself. And as the migration numbers show: "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." something is wrong with the place.
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).
Wikipedia: "The Pitcairn government's attempts to attract migrants have been unsuccessful. Since 2013, some 700 make inquiries each year, but so far, not a single formal settlement application has been received."
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?
I've heard that there have been applications, but the problem seems to be that the people applying lack the understanding of what it's like to live there. Generally you want people to live on the island for a few months to see if they can manage. Things are on hold at the moment due to the borders being closed during the pandemic.
> Once they get Skylink it sounds like a libertarian dream
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.
Populating a place (making babies) is not a problem and if it starts to be one, then something is wrong with the place: If future prospects are very grimm, then people stop having kids. This is something seen across the entire western world. Wages are too low and to add insult to injury people outside the west (Jews, Arabs, PoC) demand immigration to solve the (wrong) problem, but serving their own interests.
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.
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/