Okay, I also agree with Andrew, though. The reason the years end at 2030 is that I embarrassingly thought this would be a Free Response market, didn't realize we wouldn't be able to add additional response years to a Multiple Choice market. I'm probably going to have to make another market :( So yeah, bets weren't meant to be restricted to the 2020s. (That said, I'm still a bit unclear on how opportunity cost should affect our willingness to bet over far future resolution dates. Some members of the forecaster/mechanism design community argue <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oY9HNicqGGihymnzk/intelligence-officials-say-u-s-has-retrieved-craft-of-non?commentId=ADm4bcEG2ctqbNNpk> that we wont get informative figures from > 15 year bets until we have derivative trading, but I'm not sure how much the effects of the derivatives they mention would differ from manifold's existing loan system (you automatically receive interest free loans asymptotically approaching the sum of your outstanding bets).)
I should point out that we're betting absolutely tiny amounts here so far, due to opportunity costs, and because there probably aren't many climate intervention researchers already hanging out on manifold. I'm mostly just betting to get the ball rolling, so, heh, the more wrong I am, the better I am performing my role as market creator (the more mana you get to take from me). I should probably investigate the geopolitical risks of climate intervention more deeply. Though my field is not geoengineering, the geopolitics of emerging technology increasingly* kind of probably is going to be* my field, at this point, so I should know more about this. If I had to bet now, though (and I don't, and shouldn't) I'd bet that escalation threats concerning what are essentially attempts to stabilize our own climate (a climate which we need? for agriculture?), are in the category of threats we have to vocally dismiss. It's like threatening to escalate if we dare to commit the offense of engaging in commercial fishing, or monitoring the ocean for foreign submarines. There are many threat-bargains we have to be able to reject as unreasonable, and this may be one of them. Regarding engineering difficulties, I think it's easy to underestimate technological change. We have more researchers and engineers and modelling tools than we ever have, and technical progress follows counterintuitive laws; what the machine gives us is not just *the average of the work of research scenes that we can currently see*, what the machine gives us the *weirdest, unprecedented best*. Reliably, every year, we receive impossible findings, and then those impossible findings proliferate into all hands. I think unexpected engineering solutions are likely to pop up really as soon as there's a market for cooling credits. (I'd expect that around, median, 2029? Maybe *that* would be a better topic for a manifold question!) On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 10:04:59 AM UTC+12 Andrew Lockley wrote: > 30pc of the increase since 1990 is around 11y of global warming - roughly > 1/6 of all GHGs emitted or around 0.2C of cooling. The most popular votes > are late 2020s. The equipment to do this work simply doesn't exist - it's > not even at the detailed design stage. To get this done by the late 2020s > would require an Apollo style engineering project (probably smaller > expenditure, probably larger fleet tonnage - but you get the idea), > followed by the most sudden global cooling since Pinatubo - all without > triggering a war among nuclear armed superpowers who are currently having > the largest land war since WWII. > > I'm at the gung ho end of gung ho, and even I can confidently say that > simply isn't going to happen. > > Andrew Lockley > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2023, 22:54 mako yass, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 30% strikes a balance between being serious enough that it indicates that >> they (whoever is doing it, anyone interested in betting on who's going to >> go first? :) ) probably going to go all the way, and occurring closer to >> the beginning than the end, so easier to estimate from political factors >> alone without having to guess about what techniques might be used. >> >> Would you argue that I should lower this? Would 10% represent just as >> much of a commitment? >> >> On Sunday, July 9, 2023 at 1:42:07 AM UTC+12 Andrew Song wrote: >> >>> Why 30%? What if it's only 1% and deployment is measurable, recorded, >>> and verified? >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 4:19 AM mako yass <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I've created a prediction market about when Solar Radiation Management >>>> will first be "seriously" deployed (for a definition of "seriously", see >>>> the question). It's just on Manifold, so it's not using real money, but >>>> Manifold players take the game pretty seriously, so I expect it to still >>>> produce a somewhat meaningful probability distribution over possible dates. >>>> In the very least, members of the list may find it fun to bet on. >>>> >>>> The prediction market: >>>> https://manifold.markets/makoyass/when-will-serious-deployment-of-sol >>>> >>>> ad astra. >>>> system designer mako yass <https://aboutmako.makopool.com/> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b3d9a53f-2a84-4980-9420-290268ee2bb9n%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/b3d9a53f-2a84-4980-9420-290268ee2bb9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/101f0bcc-85ce-48f5-b52c-f659ff415fa5n%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/101f0bcc-85ce-48f5-b52c-f659ff415fa5n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/9dcee97f-c97a-4832-897e-48ccdb008378n%40googlegroups.com.
