[jsmthrowaway]

Well, the meme isn’t that far off. This community is starting to sound like the Soviet Union. Did everyone read that thread this morning and take it as a challenge or something? It’s not a goal to which to aspire.

These are lives you’re talking about here, kids, kids that happen to be currently sharing the same planet as you. Human beings are not figures on a balance sheet, and I lament anyone’s soul that would dispute me on that point. The pillars of this community sit on billions and get hospitals named after them, but some brown kids in a cave are a theoretical exercise to think about economics? They have memories. Families. Hopes. Should we debate your worth? What’s the figure where you are no longer considered worthwhile?

If I can’t meet you on something as fundamental as every life is worth saving, we simply aren’t having the same conversation, and I’ll be honest, your side gives me pause. And I see it far too often among people here who simply consider themselves pragmatic. Many throughout history have convinced themselves of their pragmatism, and we have all paid for it for centuries.

What unfortunate times to live in where the scions of high tech debate the value of individual lives in a far flung part of the world. This thread should disgust.

[drewblaisdell]

You are misreading me and the poster above. I was simply explaining what he meant and why it could be seen as rational.

The issue is really not as simple as you describe. Of course every life is worth saving, especially the lives of children. However, given a finite set of resources, would you rather save more or fewer children? The amount of money that goes into a long shot at saving a child with terminal cancer in the US would provide clean water and mosquito nets for many children in sub-Saharan Africa.

Am I saying that we should enforce this reallocation of resources? No. But I am saying that it is complicated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

[zaroth]

Seriously, how many kids have died from thirst, starvation, or disease curable with under $10 of medication worldwide in the time it’s taken to try to rescue the kids from that cave?

But people love a spectacle. And heroics. So we just have to figure out how to make mosquito netting seem spectacularly heroic...

[caf]

Sure, but was money diverted from mosquito netting programs to pay for this rescue? It certainly doesn't seem that way. Rather it the resources seem to have mostly come from the Thai military.

Why weren't you asking the Thai military to divert its resources to mosquito netting programs last week?

[slededit]

Surely that can't be true either or we'd be spending all our time saving people.

No the truth is more grim, we will save people until it costs more than we are willing to spend. Over time that threshold has increased with our wealth - but it remains in place as it must. Most people don't consciously think about it and it's upsetting to many.

[drewblaisdell]

> Surely that can't be true either or we'd be spending all our time saving people.

Advocates of effective altruism argue that the best of us do this, and that if we all did this, it wouldn't take all of our time.

[slededit]

It would because there are people we don't know how to save yet. The only way to save a cancer victim is to spend all of our time on cancer research. I think what most people mean is that they are willing to go to first order efforts to save people where immediately possible. But that is really just a form of triage and cost saving measure. Practicality still rules in the end.

[drewblaisdell]

I don't think I understand your comment. There are people we don't know how to save, but there are also people we do know how to save. The Against Malaria Foundation, for instance, claims that every ~$3k donated results in the prevention of the death of a child under the age of 5 (https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf#Cost_per_death_averte...).

[slededit]

I'm arguing against the idea that people truly believe "every life is worth saving" even by effective altruism advocates. Effective altruism is only arguing how we should ration the resources we've already allocated to helping people. It doesn't address the fact there is a quota at all.

For people who deal with this professionally the quota is defined monetarily. For the average person its an unconscious decision. But in all cases the amount of resources allocated to helping is not defined directly by the demand.