I think something that would be closer to 50⁄50 for me (or I haven’t thought about it actually, but on its face seem closer to a midpoint):
It would be better to invest an extra $100M to spend on animal welfare in the future than spending it on global health now.
What do you mean by “invest” here? Like financially, or capacity building or anything? If investing includes capacity building, shouldn’t you strongly favour animal welfare (away from 50⁄50), consistent with the following claim?
Conditional on there being several years of capacity build up, animal welfare would use the funds more effectively.
(There’s also the issue of spending $100M on global health now vs spending it on global health over time or in the future, but I don’t expect this to change the marginal cost-effectiveness of grants to GiveWell recommendations by >10x, unless we’re going way out. Maybe there are better global health interventions that can absorb $100M over time than GiveWell recommendations, though.)
I meant more literally, put $100M in an investment account to save for good future animal opportunities vs spending on the best global health interventions today. I’m not certain it’s actually a 50⁄50 item, but was trying to find a mid point.
Maybe there are better global health interventions that can absorb $100M over time than GiveWell recommendations, though.)
I don’t really know enough about global health work to say—but I’d guess there are some novel medical things seem plausibly able to:
What do you mean by “invest” here? Like financially, or capacity building or anything? If investing includes capacity building, shouldn’t you strongly favour animal welfare (away from 50⁄50), consistent with the following claim?
(There’s also the issue of spending $100M on global health now vs spending it on global health over time or in the future, but I don’t expect this to change the marginal cost-effectiveness of grants to GiveWell recommendations by >10x, unless we’re going way out. Maybe there are better global health interventions that can absorb $100M over time than GiveWell recommendations, though.)
I meant more literally, put $100M in an investment account to save for good future animal opportunities vs spending on the best global health interventions today. I’m not certain it’s actually a 50⁄50 item, but was trying to find a mid point.
I don’t really know enough about global health work to say—but I’d guess there are some novel medical things seem plausibly able to:
Appear over the next few decades
Require a lot of cash to scale up
Could be really cost-effective