/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11462025
I think the furthest I'll go is the correlation between IQ and opinion of Re-L.

>>11451463
Not readily possible. See:
>>11448345

They're dying and staying dead for a reason. Likewise with these forests, the soil microbes are dead.

Some say "technology got us here, man cannot expect to repair the world with further use of technology." And I do see that logic, but the fact is, I think that's really the only option we have. The Earth may have entered a state where it cannot stabilize on its own, therefore we would have to double down on technological means of stabilizing and reversing some of the feedback loops we've disrupted. That could be energy/frequency weapons, perhaps to alter the methane in the atmosphere or enhance plant growth (see eg Magnetism and its effects on the living system" by davis and rawls). Nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and biomimetics to clean up and mimic roles previously filled by biological systems.

And lastly, we should prepare for the high probability that we're lose the capacity for large scale organization, and therefore industrial output and anything resembling collective action. In this case, if everything truly is as dire as some say, we should accelerate our development of AI, give it access to a database of genes from different species, and in the case we're all destroyed, allow it to have access to our infrastructure. Enough to bootstrap a manufacturing base and sensor network, while it goes about fixing things to the extent possible. Perhaps this has already happened at least once.

Don't know. The insects are clearly pretty well killed off, and trees are rotting from the tops, bottoms, and inside. The light is wrong, the air is wrong, something is very wrong. That's my own observation. With some many entities and agendas at work it's hard to tell what's actually true, if they're trying to lead you into something (a trap), or so on. I recommend Ergo Proxy to anyone who also thinks this way.