Just to be clear, under most ethical systems this is a lower bound.
Humanity going extinct is a lot worse than 8 billion people dying, unless you don’t care at all about future lives (and you don’t care about the long term goals of present humans, most of which have at least some goals that extend beyond their death).
Hmm agreed with some caveats. Eg, for many people’s ethics, saving infants/newborns is unusually important, whereas preventing extinction is an unweighted average. So that will marginally tip the balance in favor of the global health charities.
On the other hand, you might expect increasing donations by 1% (say) to have higher marginal EV than 1% of doubling donations.
Just to be clear, under most ethical systems this is a lower bound.
Humanity going extinct is a lot worse than 8 billion people dying, unless you don’t care at all about future lives (and you don’t care about the long term goals of present humans, most of which have at least some goals that extend beyond their death).
Hmm agreed with some caveats. Eg, for many people’s ethics, saving infants/newborns is unusually important, whereas preventing extinction is an unweighted average. So that will marginally tip the balance in favor of the global health charities.
On the other hand, you might expect increasing donations by 1% (say) to have higher marginal EV than 1% of doubling donations.