[vacuity]

> I don't think it's reasonable to compare the risk of suffering a large loss with the risk of missing out on a large gain. If your annual income is $N, missing out on a gain of $N is bad, but not nearly as bad a suffering a loss of $N.

- A comment I saw elsewhere on HN today

It's quite rational, in many cases, to consider loss of an object X worse than gain of X. A less rigorous example I like to use: it's far easier, and unequal, to kill a person than revive a person.

[dylan604]

Isn't this the accepted advice for investment. Putting money in something that gains X% consistently with years of proven sustained growth vs putting money in something with potential 100X% growth but could give you negative growth if it fails has always been the advice in long term financial planning

[Dylan16807]

> A less rigorous example I like to use: it's far easier, and unequal, to kill a person than revive a person.

People's intuitions aren't going to work right for situations that are impossible. I don't think you should use that example. (Or if you mean medical revival from the edge of death, then it's very difficult to visualize a "kill" that's actually an equal amount of damage.)

And things you own are fungible while people are not, which is itself enough to ruin the analogy.

[buellerbueller]

This, in a nutshell, is why Effective Altruism sucks.