One thing that seems noteworthy is the fact that the population effect actually brings people closer together than they were before: Ignoring population effects, AMF has high impact from a CU perspective but low impact from a suffering-focussed perspective; accounting for population effects, the difference almost vanishes. Another way of looking at it: In situations where the population remains constant, population ethics becomes irrelevant.
So accounting for population effects mainly gives us these two updates:
Population-ethical views become less relevant for prioritisation between various GiveWell charities (and not more relevant, as some seemed to suggest (possibly with the exception of the negative preference view)).
AMF might be less effective than deworming charities according to most population-ethical views (but still more effective than cash transfers due to developmental effects of malaria prevention).
If we consider wild-animal suffering, I think AMF looks better than charities that don’t create as many human lives. This could once again make AMF more cost-effective according to many population-ethical views (unless you consider wild insects to have good lives on average).
One thing that seems noteworthy is the fact that the population effect actually brings people closer together than they were before: Ignoring population effects, AMF has high impact from a CU perspective but low impact from a suffering-focussed perspective; accounting for population effects, the difference almost vanishes. Another way of looking at it: In situations where the population remains constant, population ethics becomes irrelevant.
So accounting for population effects mainly gives us these two updates:
Population-ethical views become less relevant for prioritisation between various GiveWell charities (and not more relevant, as some seemed to suggest (possibly with the exception of the negative preference view)).
AMF might be less effective than deworming charities according to most population-ethical views (but still more effective than cash transfers due to developmental effects of malaria prevention).
If we consider wild-animal suffering, I think AMF looks better than charities that don’t create as many human lives. This could once again make AMF more cost-effective according to many population-ethical views (unless you consider wild insects to have good lives on average).