Wikkying?

Is there a verb for what I do when I look up one thing on Wikipedia and end up following an internal link to another wiki-page and another and another...... and are there any academics studying the six degrees of wikipedia separation? I went from ELO to Fretonia today in 9 pages and learned a lot along the way. Actually, I believe there were more like 15 separate pages involved, but one thread of them was a brief exploration of Dhani Harrisson's existence, about which, I ascertained very little in all honesty. I would be very interested in hearing more about this if anyone is studying it. I have long been interested in phenomenon like this and I am certain I'm not alone. Is it possible to write a Wikipedia page about "Wikkying" and subsequently enjoy the amazement of people who come across it while "Wikkying" and are elevated to a transcendent state of consciousness as a result? That is sort of like taking pictures of prominent architectural elements in your apartment, framing them, and then hanging them near that particular element, preferably in a variety of distinct frames. I have only seen this done well once but the effect was astonishing. Anyway, keep a peeled eye and an open mind and let me know if you need assistance. Hollis.

Should Developed Countries be allowed to mandate environmental policy in third world countries?

This is an incredibly loaded question beginning with the assertion that developed countries owe their "success" to destructive environmental practices. To assert that some first world economies owe their leverage on the global economy to non-sustainable environmental resource exploitation is essentially to accuse the citizens of those countries of either ignorance, and thus apathy, or complicity. The issue is simply not that black and white. Geopolitical forces, Weather patterns, Historical time-lines, and availability of accurate information, all play roles in determining whether a resource is used responsibly or abused prodigiously by any culture or government. To draw a line of causality from resource exploitation to continued cultural advances, economic parity, infrastructure development, or even spread of democracy/free trade etc., is a formidable topic for a dissertation, a herculean topic for a political debate or discussion.

If our goal is to develop incentives that will lead to the pursuit and practice of sustainable resource consumption it seems that, at the very least, it would be extremely reasonable to begin in the third world where any economic stimuli would be as much a factor in the efficacy of the incentives as their inherent environmental worth. It also seems that in almost every successful case of intervention on behalf of the commons by a public group or an individual there has been some element of economic incentive. Would that it were untrue of humanity that we require immediate and obvious incentive, but alas, foresight has never been our strong suit as is evinced by our current predicament. While it seems lamentable, using this to our advantage seems very reasonable and easier to do if it occurs first as an honest attempt to stabilize and develop the economies of the third world.
If we see it as legislating a specific environmental course for our inferiors it will be doomed to fail both because of the reprehensibility of that sentiment and because of the errors of judgment that underpin it. If, on the other hand, it is viewed as aid to instigate positive and sustainable practice and reform in the third world in order to level the playing field then it is both more likely to succeed, and a more honest approximation of the truth that we are all intimately bound up in this regardless of political or religious affiliations. I am essentially arguing that it is better to approach increasing sustainability in agriculture and community at the grassroots level where the immediate benefits are rapidly and plainly visible and then shaming the first world into following suit. That may seem distasteful but it seems it will work, and the stakes are to massive to take the high road here.

Thoughts on the Human Condition

After Reading John Dobson's "Advaita Vedanta and Modern Science" I thought our situation is something like that of a turtle seeking a bite of the seemingly tasty bright apple he sees every night. He sees it everywhere below him in the water. However, whenever he approaches, it moves away and if he reaches it, the water shimmers with waves he creates with his vain attempts at tasting and the apple vanishes. The turtle desires the very bright white apple and he is certain someone eats it a little bit every night as it seems to have been bitten or gnawed on. He is certain that one bite will cure his incessant craving for the big apple and relieve the only source of displeasure in his life. If only he could turn over and look up at the moon but he is biologically prohibited from such maneuvering except right before he is eaten by the panther.
Progress is as much away from our point of origin as towards our destination. Knowledge and discrimination set the direction of our movement and either renunciation or desire pull the road by beneath us. I want it to be easy but it is not. I want it to be inevitable, perhaps it is, but not in an intelligible time frame.

The Forest for the Trees

We concern ourselves with idiotic political issues so that the political system can continue to exist. We do not use democracy to harness and focus human potential. We could accomplish feats of extraordinary worth if we utilized the power of commonality that stems from mutual concern and admiration. It isnt as relative or subjective as it seems, we are facing calamity. We won't need social security if we are a nation of refugees from climate collapse.

The intelligent design debate

It is apparent to any news-savvy biologist that the intelligent design debate has an interesting hold on the American public consciousness and a consequent impact on both the perceived character of the American scientific establishment and the interface between scientific research and society. The character of the debate is, interestingly, capable of shedding light on the prejudices of both groups (the scientific establishment and the public) and is informative and important as a result of this capability.
Depending on who is debating and why, the debate seems to take two forms. There is substantial tendency for the scientific perspective to take up the gauntlet of defending a secular perspective (agnostic or atheist no matter) and then face the retort that intelligent design "theory" does not stem from a theology but rather a branch of scientific inquiry. There are two problems with this and the first is simply that science is a methodology and not a metaphysics. Science and religion are both ways of rendering out of experience an epistemology but they differ radically in almost every other respect. Accused of Materialism many scientists would, quite rightly, feel maligned. For many scientists a religious world view need not contradict or impede acceptance of any scientific theory suitably postulated and tested. Those who use the debate about intelligent design to further the agenda of secularism seem to be saying religious people are so stupid they perpetually come up with hair-brained bogus notions just to spite us. This is reprehensible to say the least, but no more than the alternative. When Creationists attempt to foist onto the public a religious doctrine utilizing the argument that it is scientifically based inquiry or theory they are guilty of the sin of duplicity and also of a misunderstanding of the way hypothesis testing works.
If the debate is not railroaded into a theological or semantic direction though, the second form it seems to take is about whether or not the "theory" of intelligent design is testable scientifically. They usually then go on to cite supporting evidence that is based on irreducible complexity in biological and astronomical systems. The horrible flaw here is that we as scientists do not set out to support our hypotheses but instead to attempt to disprove them. This keeps us from the temptation of "Cherry-picking" data. It makes bias unlikely, or at least much less likely. Intelligent design theorists do not postulate hypotheses and set about gathering evidence to disprove them. They do just the opposite. If they looked for disproof they would find it in such great abundance that they wouldn't have time to teach Sunday school or run school boards in Kansas.