I should have elaborated more upon why abortionâs scale implies that those who have intervened to reduce it thus far arenât going about it very effectively, but Iâll let Toby Ord do it instead:
Cancer, in all its forms, kills 7.6 million per year, while spontaneous abortion kills 30 times this number (World Health Organization 2005). In 6 years, the Second World War killed approximately 60 million people, whereas spontaneous abortion kills more than 3 times this number every year. For supporters of the Claim there is little choice but to see it as one of the worldâs greatest problems, if not the greatest problem.
The introduction to the Scourge ended with a practical conclusion:
> There was an overwhelming obligation on society to fight it. Other projects had to be put on hold and a major international effort dedicated to loosening the Scourgeâs grip on humanity.
For supporters of the Claim, it is difficult to resist a similar conclusion. Finding a means of saving even 5% of embryos from spontaneous abortion would save more lives than a cure for cancer. If we see one of these as requiring an immense international collaboration, then why not the other?
Tobyâs argument is about spontaneous abortionâs neglectedness, not induced abortion, but itâs easy to divide the number by 3 (200 million â 73 million) and draw the same conclusion.
I donât have strong disagreements with your policy prescriptions on adoption. Though youâve retracted the crazytown comment, Iâd also like to note that if (hypothetically) people who donated kidneys took 9 months to regenerate a new donateable kidney, then weâd see posts on the EA forum about how EAs should consider donating a kidney every year or so, and Iâd largely agree with those posts.
On voluntary abortion reductionâs tractability, I think itâs worth pointing out that other problems of moral circle expansion including slavery, womenâs rights, and hopefully animal welfare all began with voluntarily convincing people to do what was right, even in a time when few agreed. 150 years ago, slavery was widely practiced by many âcivilizedâ countries. I donât think itâs impossible that in 150 years, abortion will be widely regarded as the worst moral catastrophe in history between human beings. If that day ever comes, itâll because people were convinced to take a stand, one person at a time.
Again, I really donât think you can draw conclusions about âeffectiveness,â at least as defined as âseizing the lowest-hanging fruit,â by articulating the scale of the problem.
But one other way you might find leverage is by moving the medical ethics community to include miscarriages in mortality statistics. 50% of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities and occur during the first few months of pregnancy.
Right now, we have all kinds of med ethics concerns around the idea that itâs somehow unethical to give an âadvantageâ by genetic modification or selection of embryos. But if we viewed that embryo as a person, or a medical patient, it is consensus unethical to make medical decisions on behalf of the welfare of anyone except that patient. So you can then only consider the health of the embryo. As a happy consequence, you not only get moral grounds for embryo engineering for health, you also (from a population growth and maternal health perspective) get ~75% fewer miscarriages if this became a common practice.
Thanks for your reply!
I should have elaborated more upon why abortionâs scale implies that those who have intervened to reduce it thus far arenât going about it very effectively, but Iâll let Toby Ord do it instead:
Tobyâs argument is about spontaneous abortionâs neglectedness, not induced abortion, but itâs easy to divide the number by 3 (200 million â 73 million) and draw the same conclusion.
I donât have strong disagreements with your policy prescriptions on adoption. Though youâve retracted the crazytown comment, Iâd also like to note that if (hypothetically) people who donated kidneys took 9 months to regenerate a new donateable kidney, then weâd see posts on the EA forum about how EAs should consider donating a kidney every year or so, and Iâd largely agree with those posts.
On voluntary abortion reductionâs tractability, I think itâs worth pointing out that other problems of moral circle expansion including slavery, womenâs rights, and hopefully animal welfare all began with voluntarily convincing people to do what was right, even in a time when few agreed. 150 years ago, slavery was widely practiced by many âcivilizedâ countries. I donât think itâs impossible that in 150 years, abortion will be widely regarded as the worst moral catastrophe in history between human beings. If that day ever comes, itâll because people were convinced to take a stand, one person at a time.
Again, I really donât think you can draw conclusions about âeffectiveness,â at least as defined as âseizing the lowest-hanging fruit,â by articulating the scale of the problem.
But one other way you might find leverage is by moving the medical ethics community to include miscarriages in mortality statistics. 50% of miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities and occur during the first few months of pregnancy.
Right now, we have all kinds of med ethics concerns around the idea that itâs somehow unethical to give an âadvantageâ by genetic modification or selection of embryos. But if we viewed that embryo as a person, or a medical patient, it is consensus unethical to make medical decisions on behalf of the welfare of anyone except that patient. So you can then only consider the health of the embryo. As a happy consequence, you not only get moral grounds for embryo engineering for health, you also (from a population growth and maternal health perspective) get ~75% fewer miscarriages if this became a common practice.