> Wait what? With your reasoning we could leave those Thai schoolchildren in that cave.
In order to save more lives that can be saved more cheaply, yes.
In order to save more lives that can be saved more cheaply, yes.
These are lives you’re talking about here, kids, kids that happen to be currently sharing the same planet as you. Human beings are not figures on a balance sheet, and I lament anyone’s soul that would dispute me on that point. The pillars of this community sit on billions and get hospitals named after them, but some brown kids in a cave are a theoretical exercise to think about economics? They have memories. Families. Hopes. Should we debate your worth? What’s the figure where you are no longer considered worthwhile?
If I can’t meet you on something as fundamental as every life is worth saving, we simply aren’t having the same conversation, and I’ll be honest, your side gives me pause. And I see it far too often among people here who simply consider themselves pragmatic. Many throughout history have convinced themselves of their pragmatism, and we have all paid for it for centuries.
What unfortunate times to live in where the scions of high tech debate the value of individual lives in a far flung part of the world. This thread should disgust.
The issue is really not as simple as you describe. Of course every life is worth saving, especially the lives of children. However, given a finite set of resources, would you rather save more or fewer children? The amount of money that goes into a long shot at saving a child with terminal cancer in the US would provide clean water and mosquito nets for many children in sub-Saharan Africa.
Am I saying that we should enforce this reallocation of resources? No. But I am saying that it is complicated.
But people love a spectacle. And heroics. So we just have to figure out how to make mosquito netting seem spectacularly heroic...
Why weren't you asking the Thai military to divert its resources to mosquito netting programs last week?
No the truth is more grim, we will save people until it costs more than we are willing to spend. Over time that threshold has increased with our wealth - but it remains in place as it must. Most people don't consciously think about it and it's upsetting to many.
Advocates of effective altruism argue that the best of us do this, and that if we all did this, it wouldn't take all of our time.
For people who deal with this professionally the quota is defined monetarily. For the average person its an unconscious decision. But in all cases the amount of resources allocated to helping is not defined directly by the demand.
I'm not sure how to determine what "effective altruism" is arguing, but prominent EA advocates like Will MacAskill and Peter Singer are absolutely concerned with increasing the amount of money allocated to helping people. The conclusion of Singer's most famous argument is that we have a moral imperative to donate most of our money to saving the most lives. Even personally, both live modestly and donate most of their income.