Generally, spending on improving the health of poor people in developing countries (who tend to be low skilled subsistence farmers) is not ‘practical’ from the economic perspective, as these persons do not contribute to the economy very much—only produce the subsistence they need. So, if a person in Malawi contributes only additional $3/year to the economy (Woods et al.), then why saving their life for $3,500 (Weller and US GDP deflator)?
Assuming you mean this seriously, I think most people value human lives for more than their economic products, such that most people are willing to spend more than what a person contributes back to the global economy. Yes, sometimes people make arguments from economics to try to assess how much we value a human life in terms of money, but these tend to be looking at how much we actually spend on such efforts, which in rich countries works out to about $50,000/year when looking primarily at medical spending, not on how much the average person produces.
That is good to hear. I just hope that this is the general opinion of the public in advanced economies: that they can sacrifice some of their socio-economic status to benefit those much less privileged. But then, it may actually be that developing countries with limited budgets cognize that if they do not economically advance, they will continue to be trapped in poverty—so, they spend their budgets wisely (where it advances human capital the most). Thus, I hope that EAs take care of the international wealth redistribution so that all can advance.
Generally, spending on improving the health of poor people in developing countries (who tend to be low skilled subsistence farmers) is not ‘practical’ from the economic perspective, as these persons do not contribute to the economy very much—only produce the subsistence they need. So, if a person in Malawi contributes only additional $3/year to the economy (Woods et al.), then why saving their life for $3,500 (Weller and US GDP deflator)?
Assuming you mean this seriously, I think most people value human lives for more than their economic products, such that most people are willing to spend more than what a person contributes back to the global economy. Yes, sometimes people make arguments from economics to try to assess how much we value a human life in terms of money, but these tend to be looking at how much we actually spend on such efforts, which in rich countries works out to about $50,000/year when looking primarily at medical spending, not on how much the average person produces.
That is good to hear. I just hope that this is the general opinion of the public in advanced economies: that they can sacrifice some of their socio-economic status to benefit those much less privileged. But then, it may actually be that developing countries with limited budgets cognize that if they do not economically advance, they will continue to be trapped in poverty—so, they spend their budgets wisely (where it advances human capital the most). Thus, I hope that EAs take care of the international wealth redistribution so that all can advance.