| > A more objective statement would be "USSAID-funded programs have plausibly contributed to averting tens of millions of deaths over two decades. PEPFAR's ~25M is the best-evidenced single component and the abrupt 2025 dismantling is causing ongoing excess mortality whose true magnitude won't be known for years but is unlikely to be zero." I think this is a fair critique overall. I was less concerned with a statement of absolute truth, and more with providing a claim that was better-justified than the parent of my original comment. > Even given that, your framing is misplaced because you're saying that if someone you have never met is dying and you don't help them you are killing them. That logic is severely flawed. I don't know how much I fundamentally disagree with you, but I have a few responses: 1) I think analogizing the US Government to "you" is questionable. I am one person, born into the universe with approximately zero resources and a finite lifespan. The US Government is approximately the most well-resourced organization on Planet Earth and is, for most intents and purposes, perpetual. If you have been voted into stewardship of this organization, I do not think deliberately ending a sub-program of your organization that prevents significant excess mortality at relatively low costs, while also advancing the political goals of your organization, is ethically neutral or better. Many people further believe that part of the bargain of delegating taxation and governance powers to these governmental forces is the accomplishment of pro-social goals like the prevention of death, but I understand this is not universally-held belief, and the election of someone who promised to cut USAID is basically tantamount to society "okay"-ing these preventable deaths. 2) I have given more than $10k USD to effective altruist charity funds, including Against Malaria, because I do think that people in the rich world have some moral responsibility to spend their resources on the betterment of others who were born into worse circumstances due to simple bad luck. That being said, I can't provide a lower bound at which point I start judging the non-largesse of others, and I think Peter Singer would argue that only having donated four months of my current rent to this goal makes me evil. |