By GiveWell’s own estimates, the effect of AMF is that it leaves total population numbers largely unchanged.
Where in that report does it say that, exactly? The summary at the top says that lifesaving interventions normally increase population:
Overall, it appears that life-saving interventions unaccompanied by other improvements, where access to contraception is weak, are likely to lead to some acceleration of population growth.
Furthermore, increased population compounds over time with the population growth rate. Saving a life several hundred years ago in the United States would have resulted in hundreds of additional lives over the subsequent generations.
“The impact of mortality drops on fertility will be nearly 1:1, so population growth will hardly change.”
Before the line you quote:
“Overall, it appears that life-saving interventions unaccompanied by other improvements, where access to contraception is weak, are likely to lead to some”
Re-reading it now, it seems weird GW would put two apparently contradictory statements next to each other.
I think my main point still stands. If you thought saving lives was good because you are a total util the more happy years the better, you should be less excited about AMF the more it doesn’t cause there to be more happy years by altering population dynamics.
Where in that report does it say that, exactly? The summary at the top says that lifesaving interventions normally increase population:
Furthermore, increased population compounds over time with the population growth rate. Saving a life several hundred years ago in the United States would have resulted in hundreds of additional lives over the subsequent generations.
It’s just a couple of lines above in the box:
“The impact of mortality drops on fertility will be nearly 1:1, so population growth will hardly change.”
Before the line you quote:
“Overall, it appears that life-saving interventions unaccompanied by other improvements, where access to contraception is weak, are likely to lead to some”
Re-reading it now, it seems weird GW would put two apparently contradictory statements next to each other.
I think my main point still stands. If you thought saving lives was good because you are a total util the more happy years the better, you should be less excited about AMF the more it doesn’t cause there to be more happy years by altering population dynamics.