I'm working on some training materials for an EA course I teach and articles for Giving What We Can and started trying to visualise the idea of tradeoffs and priorities when it comes to choosing where to dedicate resources. These are both practical (e.g. ease, risk preference) and moral (e.g. future-focus, human-focus).
Here's the ones I've got so far. The list could be endless and I'm trying to single out what the most important ones are. I'm keen to hear what you think is missing as well as which ones you think are most important (especially if thinking of a decision flowchart, or mathematical weightings).
Here's the link if you want to comment directly on Google Slides.
I would talk about "correlations" more than "tradeoffs." Reducing pollution, for example, will likely lead to lives that are both longer and happier.
I read somewhere that a big failure of the movement to reduce climate carbon emissions is its focus on climate change (which is a contentious issue despite the mass of evidence). However, reducing carbon emissions will also reduce air pollution, which kills thousands upon thousands even in the developed world. The benefits of lowering pollution are obvious, non-contentious, and don't depend on climate models that most people do not understand. So why not campaign for clean air, and get global warming reduction as a collateral benefit?