Thanks you very much for your comment, I'm very grateful this community is giving me feedback.
However, I think there is a misunderstanding: maybe the post gave the impression I think of death as something to be avoided at all costs. If we accepted the previous statement, the conclusion would be to kill everyone, but that would bring no more morally desirable things. And that is not what the post is talking about. It only means that, everything else equal, the world would be better if we make the number of deaths of right holders (including humans) less than infinite.
How to include math in posts? I've tried but mathematical text does not appear. The EA forum user manual doesn't include enough information about this. I would be very grateful if someone could help me with this.
I write to ask for hints or rules of thumb for making tradeoffs between columns by myself, since my world view is a bit different than the one from 80k. I would be very grateful if someone could help me in this.
If Charity cost-effectiveness comparisons are about average cost-effectiveness. How can we know about the marginal impact of our donations? I'm curious about that, because that could mean the best donations are not necessarily to the top charities listed...
Thanks for this post! It is exactly what I needed to read. However, isn't risky to make an application, receiving an offer and then rejecting it? Would the hiring committee give an offer to someone who re-applied to the opportunity he/she previously declined? I would really like to know more about this.
As a constructive criticism, I am not sure if it is possible to sustainable achieve the EU's child mortality rate worldwide, because better healthcare involves spending more resources and producing those resources for the EU implied exploiting finite natural resources of the planet. There is research that asserts we would need more than one planet to make all countries achieve the quality of life of the most developed ones. We need to find a way of sustainably improve healthcare in less developed countries.
Very good introduction to effective altruism. However, I was thinking about the example of the spending on counter terrorism and pandemics prevention. The low number of deaths by terrorism could be due to the large spending on counter terrorism so if we allocate such spending in pandemic prevention the number of terrorism victims could increase. How to know how much resources to re-allocate for optimal distribution?
Thanks you very much for your comment, I'm very grateful this community is giving me feedback.
However, I think there is a misunderstanding: maybe the post gave the impression I think of death as something to be avoided at all costs. If we accepted the previous statement, the conclusion would be to kill everyone, but that would bring no more morally desirable things. And that is not what the post is talking about. It only means that, everything else equal, the world would be better if we make the number of deaths of right holders (including humans) less than infinite.
How to include math in posts? I've tried but mathematical text does not appear. The EA forum user manual doesn't include enough information about this. I would be very grateful if someone could help me with this.
I write to ask for hints or rules of thumb for making tradeoffs between columns by myself, since my world view is a bit different than the one from 80k. I would be very grateful if someone could help me in this.
If Charity cost-effectiveness comparisons are about average cost-effectiveness. How can we know about the marginal impact of our donations? I'm curious about that, because that could mean the best donations are not necessarily to the top charities listed...
Thanks for this post! It is exactly what I needed to read. However, isn't risky to make an application, receiving an offer and then rejecting it? Would the hiring committee give an offer to someone who re-applied to the opportunity he/she previously declined? I would really like to know more about this.
As a constructive criticism, I am not sure if it is possible to sustainable achieve the EU's child mortality rate worldwide, because better healthcare involves spending more resources and producing those resources for the EU implied exploiting finite natural resources of the planet. There is research that asserts we would need more than one planet to make all countries achieve the quality of life of the most developed ones. We need to find a way of sustainably improve healthcare in less developed countries.
Very good introduction to effective altruism. However, I was thinking about the example of the spending on counter terrorism and pandemics prevention. The low number of deaths by terrorism could be due to the large spending on counter terrorism so if we allocate such spending in pandemic prevention the number of terrorism victims could increase. How to know how much resources to re-allocate for optimal distribution?