A Wired news article draws attention to an excellent use of the web, rich smart people's money, and the sporting tendancy (the kinder, gentler term for "gambling problem") many opinionful (the kinder, gentler term I invented to substitute for "opinionated") persons share.
The site in question is Long Bets. It's got several things going for it. One is the aforementioned smart people. Their wagers are accompanied by the reasoning behind them, which is intrinsically educational, because the bet can't be about something trivial ~ from the rules: "The subject of the bet must be societally or scientifically important." The second is that any monies won go to designated charities. The third is that you don't have to be super-rich to join in, although you do have to have $1000 to donate to charity (you can claim a tax break). Or, if you just want to chime in, when the Long Bets site moves out of beta ~ "in April" says the site ~ you can participate in discussions. Finally, in a society that constantly emphasizes "now, immediately, today," it's refreshing to see people looking out to a farther horizon. The minimum period for the bet is two years, which admittedly isn't much, but currently the shortest term is a quickie bet that ends in 2007 (why am I not surprised that this bet was placed by Dave Winer? :) ). Danny Hillis, a fascinating guy who really thinks long term (see The Long Now Foundation), is behind this effort too. And the Long Now gets at least some of its money from yet another intriguing bunch, the Lazy 8 Foundation.
Several of the current bets already touch on topics of long-standing interest to me (no pun intended): e.g., when a computer passes the Turing Test, or whether the Universe will eventually stop expanding... As well as ones about which I can barely conjure a flicker of interest ("The US men's soccer team will win the World Cup before the Red Sox win the World Series." And I grew up in Boston!).
The list of open bets is pretty intriguing too. If I ever start thinking again, it would be fun to try to come up with an interesting proposition that one might actually live to see resolved. But for purely emotional reasons, I hope no one takes up Martin Rees's bet about terrorism. Somehow it doesn't seem right to place a wager ~ even for charity ~ about the deliberate murder of millions of people.
Write to me!
