On a recent Wednesday afternoon, I was having lunch with a friend and mentioned that some of my friends donated money to buy bed nets to prevent malaria.
One reason not to give to people in poor countries is that we don't care. Another reason not to give is anticolonialism: As soon as people invest in something, they tend to want to decide about that thing. We Westerners know that we are not supposed to decide things in poor countries. For that reason many people have the reflex to stay away altogether, I think.
Huh, (first time reader). I mostly think EA people are a little nuts. (No offense meant... everyone is a little nuts in some respect.) I don't know the data, but I would guess that a large fraction of miscarriages are due to some genetic mistake, or some 'sense' in the body that this pregnancy won't lead to a viable offspring. This is the brutal part of natural selection, and over ridding that selection seems like a potential mistake. I know we are not totally governed by our genes.
I think coming up with a value of a statistical life, foregone would be really valuable. I pitched the concept in one of my cause exploration essays. I think it would be useful in a lot of contexts, including outside of EA. Can you think of a good way to do it? I was thinking:
1. Court awards for miscarriages or injuries that cause infertility.
2. Surveys of potential parents.
3. Risk premium for jobs that increase risks of infertility.
I'm sympathetic to the total view. But I was thinking from trying to get federal agencies (maximally ambitious) to some EA grantmakers (still would thrill me) to account for effects of interventions on births when doing cost-benefit analysis. (I don't think I can convince people to accept the total view)
Brutal
One reason not to give to people in poor countries is that we don't care. Another reason not to give is anticolonialism: As soon as people invest in something, they tend to want to decide about that thing. We Westerners know that we are not supposed to decide things in poor countries. For that reason many people have the reflex to stay away altogether, I think.
Huh, (first time reader). I mostly think EA people are a little nuts. (No offense meant... everyone is a little nuts in some respect.) I don't know the data, but I would guess that a large fraction of miscarriages are due to some genetic mistake, or some 'sense' in the body that this pregnancy won't lead to a viable offspring. This is the brutal part of natural selection, and over ridding that selection seems like a potential mistake. I know we are not totally governed by our genes.
I think coming up with a value of a statistical life, foregone would be really valuable. I pitched the concept in one of my cause exploration essays. I think it would be useful in a lot of contexts, including outside of EA. Can you think of a good way to do it? I was thinking:
1. Court awards for miscarriages or injuries that cause infertility.
2. Surveys of potential parents.
3. Risk premium for jobs that increase risks of infertility.
I'm sympathetic to the total view. But I was thinking from trying to get federal agencies (maximally ambitious) to some EA grantmakers (still would thrill me) to account for effects of interventions on births when doing cost-benefit analysis. (I don't think I can convince people to accept the total view)