I think in most things you need an extremist or fanatical element, so I'm not totally against doing some sums to demonstrate that something unintuitive might be more moral and/or cost-effective.

But I might look up the EA take on some other vaguely parallel things, like Quaker businesses, worker co-operatives, fair-trade, progressive taxation, banning billionaires, revolutionary communism, bringing democracy to the middle East, nuking Russia, installing a benevolent world dictator etc.

Would help me understand them to see how they position themselves against these things as I think you could make a half-assed attempt to prove that any of them was better with their own maths if you wanted to.

e.g. if there's any billionaires then the chance of a billionaire buying elections and installing their own benevolent world dictator that believes in the wrong type of EA is a small but still existential risk (since only the true EA can save the future galactic empire). Tweak numbers as necessary until you arrive at your pre-ordained conclusion.

edit:

EA take on fair trade:

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/how-effective-fair-trad...

EA take on renewables, climate change, developing nations:

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/johannes-ackva-an...

An attempt to reconcile EA and anti-capitalism by a fan of both:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/81665058.pdf

EA take on Socialism (tl;dr central planning is bad, which seems slightly counter to the whole EA thing):

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/ktEfsoGfBFGsaiY46/...