[merpnderp]

You’re smart to use a throw away, but you’re on to something. Take Bjorn Lomberg who’s work has likely helped guide governments to make decisions which have done immeasurable good for the poor and sick, can’t even have his voice heard in the climate change debate. He’s simply called a denier and shouted down (even though he says climate change is real). His work with Nobel prize winning scientists didn’t buy him an ounce of forbearance from the modern Grand Inquisition.

[mrow84]

You mentioned that Bjørn Lomborg's work has "likely helped guide governments to make decisions which have done immeasurable good for the poor and sick" - I am interested to know, because it isn't something I am familiar with, what of his work are you referring to?

[merpnderp]

After Copenhagen Consensus, Lomberg and his advising group offered advice to several nations about the optimal issues they should be investing in to maximize lives saved and improvements in quality of life. I don't remember details off the top of my head, but that is what I was referring to.

One of the hardest books to read and see that for a pittance the world could eradicate several types of horrific diseases or drastically improve large numbers of lives, through simple targeted investments, and yet it never happens.

Here's a more personal example. After reading the book, a friend who made a mint in the oil industry bought four mobile drilling rigs, fitted them for digging water wells, paid to ship them to a state in I can't remember which country, but it was a poor one in Africa, where he hired a crew to run the operation and dig wells for free. He said it was a nightmare of red tape to operate, but wells got dug and people got fresh water that used to get dirty water.

[mrow84]

Identifying which problems can be most readily addressed with limited funding certainly seems like valuable work, and definitely worth supporting. I imagine the major constraint is funders' (i.e. rich nations') willingness to actually pay for these projects. Convincing them that they are getting the most bang for their buck seems like a good idea in today's optimisation-obsessed world.

However, having read a bit about their approach, it isn't clear to me that the methods used in that process are particularly effective at assessing longer terms problems such as climate change (and this seems to be a common critique).

There are some interesting analogues between the limitations of the CCC approach and those of longtermism, in that both focus on timescales (respectively short and very long) that diminish the importance of climate change, which is most significant as a medium-term risk. Having said that, at least the CCC work has some methodological rigour on its own terms, and actual utility - as I noted in another comment the longtermism "methodology" seems pretty hopelessly naive, and uninformative.

[MperorM]

He is the leader of the Copenhagen Consensus Center https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

Which does research into the most cost-effective ways to fight global poverty. Absolutely marvellous work.