Aren’t there interventions that could be considered (with relatively high probability) robustly positive with regards to the long term future?
I agree that interventions like this exist, and I think we identify them by making theoretical cases for & against.
Regarding such causes—given we can identify robust ones—it then may still be valuable to analyze cost-effectiveness
As above, I think cost-effectiveness can useful for determining which intervention to focus on within a specific domain (e.g. “which intervention most increases empathy?” could benefit from a cost-effect analysis).
But for questions about which domain to focus on, I don’t think cost-effectiveness gives much lift (e.g. “is it better to focus on increasing empathy or improving nuclear security?” is the kind of question that seems intractable to cost-effect analysis).
I agree that interventions like this exist, and I think we identify them by making theoretical cases for & against.
As above, I think cost-effectiveness can useful for determining which intervention to focus on within a specific domain (e.g. “which intervention most increases empathy?” could benefit from a cost-effect analysis).
But for questions about which domain to focus on, I don’t think cost-effectiveness gives much lift (e.g. “is it better to focus on increasing empathy or improving nuclear security?” is the kind of question that seems intractable to cost-effect analysis).