Anyway, I’d love to know if these ideas have been rigorously considered before.
Rigorously evaluating interventions on questions like these is the entire purpose of global health EA.
For example, you can read the evidence for malaria treated bednets, and find links to extremely high quality scientific studies showing that if you put some number X of bednets in a village, it leads to approximately Y less dead children than if you didn’t do that. I don’t see how any of your points would refute this.
If spending $X dollars today saves Y lives, then why isn’t it better to invest that money and 10 years you’ll have $2X dollars that could save 2Y lives? Capital grows exponentially but the value of human life does not, unless you have a principled reason to think that future life is less valuable than current life.
The cost-effectiveness of interventions doesn’t necessarily stay fixed over time. We would expect it to get more expensive to save a life over time, as the lowest-hanging fruit should get picked first.
(I’m not definitely saying that it’s better to donate now rather than investing and donating later—the changing cost-effectiveness of interventions is just one thing that needs to be taken into account)
Assuming that first claim is true, I’m not sure it follows that deferred donation looks even better. You’d still need to know about the marginal cost-effectiveness of the best interventions, which won’t necessarily change at the same rate as the wider economy.
Rigorously evaluating interventions on questions like these is the entire purpose of global health EA.
For example, you can read the evidence for malaria treated bednets, and find links to extremely high quality scientific studies showing that if you put some number X of bednets in a village, it leads to approximately Y less dead children than if you didn’t do that. I don’t see how any of your points would refute this.
If spending $X dollars today saves Y lives, then why isn’t it better to invest that money and 10 years you’ll have $2X dollars that could save 2Y lives? Capital grows exponentially but the value of human life does not, unless you have a principled reason to think that future life is less valuable than current life.
The cost-effectiveness of interventions doesn’t necessarily stay fixed over time. We would expect it to get more expensive to save a life over time, as the lowest-hanging fruit should get picked first.
(I’m not definitely saying that it’s better to donate now rather than investing and donating later—the changing cost-effectiveness of interventions is just one thing that needs to be taken into account)
Sure, but first world economic markets grow faster than third world economies, so deferred donation looks even better when you take this into account.
Assuming that first claim is true, I’m not sure it follows that deferred donation looks even better. You’d still need to know about the marginal cost-effectiveness of the best interventions, which won’t necessarily change at the same rate as the wider economy.