‘small or even zero’ refers to two different conclusions using two different accounting methods.
‘small’: from the method which spreads out ‘lives saved’ across all contributors in the chain of causality
‘zero’: from the method which only attributes ‘lives saved’ to the final actor in the chain of causality.
Leif provides both accounts, which is why he provides ‘small or even zero’ as his description of the impact.
I agree that it is a little unclear. I think Leif’s argument would be clearer if he omitted the ‘zero’ accounting method, which I don’t think he places much credence in but nonetheless included to illustrate the potential range of accounts of attribution.
Overall, I think that it is accurate of Leif to characterise the impact as ‘small’ if we ought to decrease impact by multiple orders of magnitude is correct.
Sure, I agree that under the (in my opinion ridiculous and unserious) accounting method of looking at the last actor, zero is a valid conclusion.
I disagree that small is accurate—I feel like even if I’m being incredibly charitable and say that the donor is only 1% of the overall ecosystem saving the life, we still get to 2000 lives saved, which seems highly unreasonable to call small—to me small is at best <100
‘small or even zero’ refers to two different conclusions using two different accounting methods.
‘small’: from the method which spreads out ‘lives saved’ across all contributors in the chain of causality
‘zero’: from the method which only attributes ‘lives saved’ to the final actor in the chain of causality.
Leif provides both accounts, which is why he provides ‘small or even zero’ as his description of the impact.
I agree that it is a little unclear. I think Leif’s argument would be clearer if he omitted the ‘zero’ accounting method, which I don’t think he places much credence in but nonetheless included to illustrate the potential range of accounts of attribution.
Overall, I think that it is accurate of Leif to characterise the impact as ‘small’ if we ought to decrease impact by multiple orders of magnitude is correct.
Sure, I agree that under the (in my opinion ridiculous and unserious) accounting method of looking at the last actor, zero is a valid conclusion.
I disagree that small is accurate—I feel like even if I’m being incredibly charitable and say that the donor is only 1% of the overall ecosystem saving the life, we still get to 2000 lives saved, which seems highly unreasonable to call small—to me small is at best <100