Hide table of contents

Author's note: Hi everyone! This is a cross-post from my blog. It's a short, accessible piece intended for those who find the idea of measuring suffering "icky," uncomfortable, or cold. I've noticed this as a fairly common reaction to effective altruism, and I wanted to write from a place of sincerely empathising with it. My goal here was to explore how quantification can complement our natural empathy rather than replace it. 


Is it more difficult to live with AIDS for a year or to have blindness for a year? There is a kind of person who wrinkles their nose at this question. I know because, I wrinkled my nose at it back in 2019, as I paged through my girlfriend's copy of Will MacAskill's Doing Good Better.

"I mean, ok, I get that you can try to measure which is worse, but, um. Feels really, icky? What would even possess someone to ask that question? It's kind of insufferable, you're not blind and you don't have AIDS, but now you're creating a 'badness' competition between the two?" I rolled my eyes. But I continued reading, because my girlfriend really liked the book and I liked her.

And as I read more, the arguments started making sense to me. The core idea is simple: if we want to help others effectively, we need ways to compare different forms of suffering so we can direct our limited resources where they'll do the most good. I hope you’ll allow me to explain a bit more.

Why we resist quantifying suffering

Why do many of us instinctively hate the idea of measuring and comparing suffering? I think it comes from the typical way that most of us orient towards pain: from a place of empathy and care. When my sister starts crying, my stomach clenches and I reach for her. I don't wonder, "Is this the most important suffering I could address right now? Does she feel worse than someone with malaria? Should I pull out my laptop and donate to a charity instead?" I ask my sister, "What's going on?" and I pull her into my arms.

I think, on some level, people are protective of their protective instincts. We like the very human part of us that jumps to our feet when a friend falls. That sees a hand extended to us when we tear up. We are protective of our pain, because it is ours.

This resistance makes sense. Quantification can feel cold, mechanical, and even dehumanising. It seems to reduce our human experience to numbers. And who are we to say, “hey, you there. This pain that feels so real and deep and consuming within you? It’s a 4. And that dude over there? His real and deep experience is a 6.”

A necessary tool in an overwhelming world

I have no argument against our empathetic impulses. I feel them too. But Doing Good Better was the very first book to ask me a question that truly resonated and changed my thinking for the better: there are a lot of hours in the day, there are a lot of people in a complicated world, and there are limited resources — we all have pain, but some of us have different kinds and many of us have a lot more resources than others — what should we do?

Putting a number on pain is not novel. When you go to the doctor and say your head hurts, you're asked to rate it on a scale from 1–10. This scale, despite its limitations and subjectivity, helps medical professionals determine appropriate treatment. When you join a transplant list, multiple factors including medical urgency, expected benefit, and time waiting are assessed to determine priority. These systems aren't perfect—they can't capture every nuance of human suffering—but they're necessary attempts to allocate scarce resources.

And it is awful, because shouldn't the doctor just take your headache seriously? And shouldn't everyone have the organs that they so desperately need? The act of quantifying suffering is not a commentary on the theoretical worth of someone's life or pain — those things are fundamentally invaluable, in my opinion. The act of quantifying suffering is a forced response to the reality that we can't help everyone.

Quantification as a complement to empathy

When we quantify suffering, we gain the ability to optimise our efforts. Research has shown that preventive malaria treatments can save a life for roughly $3000, while other interventions might cost tens or hundreds of thousands per life saved. This isn't just academic—these comparisons translate to real people whose lives are improved or saved because resources were directed more effectively. The humans themselves are, of course, never numbers — we are all very real and deserving.

And if every life matters equally, then we can and even should try to help as many people as possible.

But you don't need to do so at the cost of your sister, your friend, your care, your feeling. You can always connect with the parts of you that need to hold your loved ones — you can give those parts as much time as they need. But perhaps, you have space for other things too. The parts of you that understand how vastly your birthplace affects access to basic medical care, food, water, protection. The parts of you that understand how unfair everything is. The parts of you that have room to consider different approaches to doing good: to engage in analysis, triage, and exploration when necessary.

Quantification isn't meant to replace our empathy—it's meant to extend it, direct it. It's a tool that helps our compassion reach further and do more good in a world where needs far outstrip our capacity to address them all. By embracing both our intuitive empathy and analytical thinking, we can respond to the suffering right in front of us while also making thoughtful choices about how to help those we cannot see. I think that’s really, really beautiful. And to this day, I still say with certainty that one of the most important things I ever did was finish that book.

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

This is a great post—thanks, Frances! This comes up a lot in my conversations about EA, and I really appreciate the clarity you've brought to it.

One line that really stood out to me was:

“And shouldn’t everyone have the organs that they so desperately need?”

I think it can be useful to acknowledge that the answer to this question is a clear yes. When I talk to people about triage, I always try to acknowledge that, ideally, we wouldn’t have to make these trade-offs at all. Our ultimate goal isn’t to help only those above a certain threshold—it’s to help everyone.

We prioritise not because we think some lives matter more, but because we wish we could help everyone.

"Quantification isn't meant to replace our empathy—it's meant to extend it, direct it" is beautifully put. In the same vein, Brian Tomasik wrote of triage as being "warm and calculating", a reframing (and phrasing) which stuck with me.

Thanks for writing this! Coincidentally, my talk "The Heavy Tail of Valence: New Strategies to Quantify and Reduce Extreme Suffering" just went online a couple of hours ago. I thought you might like it ☺️ 

Oh god that's a huge preview. OK.

Executive summary: While quantifying suffering can initially feel cold or dehumanising, it is a crucial tool that complements—rather than replaces—our empathy, enabling us to help more people more effectively in a world with limited resources.

Key points:

  1. Many people instinctively resist quantifying suffering because it seems to undermine the personal, empathetic ways we relate to pain.
  2. The author empathises with this discomfort but argues that quantification is necessary for making fair, effective decisions in a world of limited resources.
  3. Everyday examples like pain scales in medicine or organ transplant lists already use imperfect but essential measures of suffering to allocate care.
  4. Quantifying suffering enables comparison across causes (e.g., malaria vs. other diseases), guiding resources where they can do the most good.
  5. Empathy and quantification need not be at odds; quantification is a tool to help our compassion reach further, not to diminish our emotional responses.
  6. The piece encourages integrating both human care and analytical thinking to address suffering more thoughtfully and impactfully.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is a linkpost for a paper I wrote recently, “Endogenous Growth and Excess Variety”, along with a summary. Two schools in growth theory Roughly speaking: In Romer’s (1990) growth model, output per person is interpreted as an economy’s level of “technology”, and the economic growth rate—the growth rate of “real GDP” per person—is proportional to the amount of R&D being done. As Jones (1995) pointed out, populations have grown greatly over the last century, and the proportion of people doing research (and the proportion of GDP spent on research) has grown even more quickly, yet the economic growth rate has not risen. Growth theorists have mainly taken two approaches to reconciling [research] population growth with constant economic growth. “Semi-endogenous” growth models (introduced by Jones (1995)) posit that, as the technological frontier advances, further advances get more difficult. Growth in the number of researchers, and ultimately (if research is not automated) population growth, is therefore necessary to sustain economic growth. “Second-wave endogenous” (I’ll write “SWE”) growth models posit instead that technology grows exponentially with a constant or with a growing population. The idea is that process efficiency—the quantity of a given good producible with given labor and/or capital inputs—grows exponentially with constant research effort, as in a first-wave endogenous model; but when population grows, we develop more goods, leaving research effort per good fixed. (We do this, in the model, because each innovator needs a monopoly on his or her invention in order to compensate for the costs of developing it.) Improvements in process efficiency are called “vertical innovations” and increases in good variety are called “horizontal innovations”. Variety is desirable, so the one-off increase in variety produced by an increase to the population size increases real GDP, but it does not increase the growth rate. Likewise exponential population growth raise
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
As we mark one year since the launch of Mieux Donner, we wanted to share some reflections on our journey and our ongoing efforts to promote effective giving in France. Mieux Donner was founded through the Effective Incubation Programme by Ambitious Impact and Giving What We Can. TLDR  * Prioritisation is important. And when the path forward is unclear, trying a lot of different potential priorities with high productivity leads to better results than analysis paralysis. * Ask yourself what the purpose of your organisation is. If you are a mainly marketing/communication org, hire people from this sector (not engineers) and don’t be afraid to hire outside of EA. * Effective altruism ideas are less controversial than we imagined and affiliation has created no (or very little) push back * Hiring early has helped us move fast and is a good idea when you have a clear process and a lot of quality applicants Summary of our progress and activities in year 1 In January 2025, we set a new strategy with time allocation for our different activities. We set one clear goal - 1M€ in donations in 2025. To achieve this goal we decided: Our primary focus for 2025 is to grow our audience. We will experiment with a variety of projects to determine the most effective ways to grow our audience. Our core activities in 2025 will focus on high-impact fundraising and outreach efforts. The strategies where we plan to spend the most time are : * SEO content (most important) * UX Optimization of the website * Social Media ; Peer to Peer fundraising ; Leveraging our existing network The graphic below shows how we plan to spend our marketing time: We are also following partnership opportunities and advising a few high net worth individuals who reached out to us and who will donate by the end of the year. Results: one year of Mieux Donner On our initial funding proposal in June 2024, we wrote down where we wanted to be in one year. Let’s see how we fared: Meta Goals * Spendi
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Sometimes working on animal issues feels like an uphill battle, with alternative protein losing its trendy status with VCs, corporate campaigns hitting blocks in enforcement and veganism being stuck at the same percentage it's been for decades. However, despite these things I personally am more optimistic about the animal movement than I have ever been (despite following the movement for 10+ years). What gives? At AIM we think a lot about the ingredients of a good charity (talent, funding and idea) and more and more recently I have been thinking about the ingredients of a good movement or ecosystem that I think has a couple of extra ingredients (culture and infrastructure). I think on approximately four-fifths of these prerequisites the animal movement is at all-time highs. And like betting on a charity before it launches, I am far more confident that a movement that has these ingredients will lead to long-term impact than I am relying on, e.g., plant-based proteins trending for climate reasons. Culture The culture of the animal movement in the past has been up and down. It has always been full of highly dedicated people in a way that is rare across other movements, but it also had infighting, ideological purity and a high level of day-to-day drama. Overall this made me a bit cautious about recommending it as a place to spend time even when someone was sold on ending factory farming. But over the last few years professionalization has happened, differences have been put aside to focus on higher goals and the drama overall has gone down a lot. This was perhaps best embodied by my favorite opening talk at a conference ever (AVA 2025) where Wayne and Lewis, leaders with very different historical approaches to helping animals, were able to share lessons, have a friendly debate and drive home the message of how similar our goals really are. This would have been nearly unthinkable decades ago (and in fact resulted in shouting matches when it was attempted). But the cult