Purpose:
This market assesses whether the idea itself—that deliberately dimming sunlight could be a net benefit to humanity—is trustworthy, credible, and well-founded in publicly accessible scientific reasoning, not whether such an event has physically occurred.
Resolution Criteria:
This market resolves YES if, by the close date, there is sufficient, credible, and publicly accessible information to indicate that:
The concept of solar-radiation management or equivalent sunlight-blocking intervention is supported as beneficial to humanity by a significant body of scientific, governmental, or institutional consensus, or
Public trust in the idea measurably increases (e.g., through formal endorsement, policy adoption, or verified scientific validation).
It resolves NO if:
There is clear, credible, and publicly available evidence that the concept is considered harmful, unethical, infeasible, or untrustworthy by leading scientific or governmental bodies, or
The majority of reputable expert commentary, peer-reviewed studies, or official reports frame it as detrimental, speculative, or manipulative in nature.
Evidence Standard:
Acceptable forms include:
Peer-reviewed publications, government or intergovernmental agency reports, official scientific advisories, or formal policy statements.
Reputable third-party summaries (major science media, recognized think tanks, or institutional research bodies).
Public polling or formal position statements showing significant shifts in credibility or public trust.
Unverified social media posts, anonymous claims, or paywalled/unverifiable materials do not count as evidence.
I do plan to vote in this market. Any objections or doubts as to how I judge or vote can be disputed but as a preliminary it should be known straightforwardly
https://au.news.yahoo.com/government-rules-plan-block-sun-101404124.html
https://ground.news/article/nasas-radio-silence-on-comet-3i-atlas-after-its-passage-on-mars
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0089-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231018303510
https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-carries-large-risks-for-natural-world-studies-show/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629624000924
Update 2025-10-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market resolves based on whether the idea itself of blocking out the sun is beneficial to humanity, not whether such an event has physically occurred. The market closes on 2025-11-12, and resolution will be determined by the state of scientific consensus and public trust in the concept by that date.
Update 2025-10-15 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarifies that this market is about whether you think blocking out the sun will help humanity (i.e., your assessment of the idea's merit), rather than strictly requiring formal scientific consensus or policy adoption to have occurred by the close date. The resolution will be based on the creator's judgment of whether the idea itself appears beneficial to humanity based on available evidence.
1,000
3.00https://scientificadvice.eu/scientific-outputs/solar-radiation-modification-evidence-review-report/
"Presently, there is no methodological basis for the systematic comparison of the risks associated with SRM and risks associated with climate change, both in the absence and in the hypothetical presence of SRM. There is thus currently little way of holistically accounting the relative benefits of SRM deployment and of non-deployment on all aspects of climate change, including human dimensions such as the diversity of social, economic, political and environmental issues. SRM deployment has environmental and social transboundary side-effects, with the potential to spark inter-state conflicts and trigger international litigation. Moreover, climate change and SRM all create considerable conceptual as well as empirical challenges for comparative risk assessment and related methodologies."
I don't see that situation changing quickly. Lots of risks with regional variations in effects and also in becoming committed to continuing SRM. However are these risks worse than the risks with global warming? That is and will remain hard to answer.
I think the risks will probably remain too great to risk doing it but that doesn't answer this question.
@JamesBaker3 Purpose:
This market assesses whether the idea itself—that deliberately dimming sunlight could be a net benefit to humanity—is trustworthy, credible, and well-founded in publicly accessible scientific reasoning, not whether such an event has physically occurred.
@Geiger0NsQ I am pointing out that it is highly likely that neither YES nor NO conditions will happen by the time the market closes.
@JamesBaker3 brother, thats not the point of the market. its about the idea itself, not the eventuality of its occurrence
better asked: Do You Think Blocking Out the Sun Will Help Humanity
@Geiger0NsQ are you saying you're going to make this a beauty contest market, and resolve it according to which "side" is "winning" the betting? Because 1) that's not a market, you should use a Manifold Poll to survey people's opinions, and 2) that's not how you wrote the resolution criteria.
I think it's more likely that you misunderstood me on an even deeper level, reading the phrase "eventuality of its occurrence" which... I think you're talking about whether "dimming sunlight" occurs? Something we could agree is completely irrelevant.
Trying one last time: you wrote, "This market resolves YES if, by the close date, there is sufficient, credible, and publicly accessible information..." And what I am pointing out is that the emergence of "sufficient ... information" is unlikely "by the close date", in either direction. So, you have defined "if this, then YES" and "if that, then NO" but you have not yet defined the "if neither" case. Hope that helps.