[ido]

> Just an intuitive understanding that if we decrease infant mortality we will net the human race many more years of life than anti-aging research. Spare a few cents for a vaccine anyone? As opposed to dumping a bunch of money into theoretical anti-aging efforts.

I will most likely never be an infant in Africa, but am very probable to eventually become an old person in the industrialized world.

It might sounds cold-hearted, but for me infant mortality in the third world is someone else's problem.

[almost]

It doesn't just sound cold-hearted, it is quite cold hearted but most people's standards. That's up to you of course, it's not like you're actively killing babies in Africa, but it does mean that conclusions you reach are not necessarily ones which other people will reach, even assuming good logical thought between the two points.

[kls]

Actually, I think most people would chose themselves over the idea of an infant in a far off land. impersonal association usual leave one with a stronger self-preservation response, over electing to sacrifice oneself for someone else. Most are either more tactful or self-delusional to not voice it out-loud.

[ramchip]

Except that if you look at it from a utility point of view: a child in the middle of Africa, as he ages, is going to produce a lot less value than someone in a developed country. In one year a programmer makes perhaps $150k's worth of product, including a large amount of taxes which the government can allocate as he pleases, while an African farmer doing survival farming is going to make a tiny fraction of that, and not one that can easily be allocated to worthy projects. Beans and bananas can buy microscopes or vaccines, but you need a lot of them.

Considering that the value produced by the programmer (or whoever) can be reinvested or dedicated eventually to fighting infant mortality, I think there's a balance to be reached. It's not as simple as saying that infant mortality must have priority over anti-aging.