First it’s worth noting that “size” is only one contributing factor in cost-effectiveness. But I acknowledge that there are some issues (rare genetic diseases, for example) that are so small that we could never justify spending lots of resources on them.
You ask how EA values diversity of issues. Clearly EA works on a number of issues, and I’d argue this is because:
there is disagreement/uncertainty about what the most cost-effective intervention is (due to lack of data and philosophical disagreements)
as you spend more on a cause, you pick the lowest hanging fruit, and the work becomes less cost-effective. Eventually you can move on to something else.
Yet clearly EA does not work on everything. Some things are just not plausibly among the most cost-effective things we can do. This does mean admitting that we are not going to “solve” type 1 diabetes in the foreseeable future.
Responding to your diabetes example, it really is sometimes better to turn down the opportunity to “solve” a problem in order to have impact elsewhere. Doctors in the 1960′s already had a way of saving ~100% of cholera sufferers in hospital using intravenous saline solution. But most people couldn’t make it to the hospital. Scientists developed an oral hydration that was less effective, but could be administered at home. This oral solution was, and has been, much more important and revolutionary than the hospital treatment. As one of the scientists put it, “It’s better to reach 80 percent of people with something that’s 80 percent effective than five percent of people with something that’s 100 percent effective.”
Ultimately, EA is about doing the most possible good with the resources available. The result is that if “your” niche or issue is something very ineffective (like training guide dogs, which is far less cost-effective than some ways of preventing or reversing blindness in poor countries) then you should change your niche.
Nice question.
First it’s worth noting that “size” is only one contributing factor in cost-effectiveness. But I acknowledge that there are some issues (rare genetic diseases, for example) that are so small that we could never justify spending lots of resources on them.
You ask how EA values diversity of issues. Clearly EA works on a number of issues, and I’d argue this is because:
there is disagreement/uncertainty about what the most cost-effective intervention is (due to lack of data and philosophical disagreements)
as you spend more on a cause, you pick the lowest hanging fruit, and the work becomes less cost-effective. Eventually you can move on to something else.
Yet clearly EA does not work on everything. Some things are just not plausibly among the most cost-effective things we can do. This does mean admitting that we are not going to “solve” type 1 diabetes in the foreseeable future.
Responding to your diabetes example, it really is sometimes better to turn down the opportunity to “solve” a problem in order to have impact elsewhere. Doctors in the 1960′s already had a way of saving ~100% of cholera sufferers in hospital using intravenous saline solution. But most people couldn’t make it to the hospital. Scientists developed an oral hydration that was less effective, but could be administered at home. This oral solution was, and has been, much more important and revolutionary than the hospital treatment. As one of the scientists put it, “It’s better to reach 80 percent of people with something that’s 80 percent effective than five percent of people with something that’s 100 percent effective.”
Ultimately, EA is about doing the most possible good with the resources available. The result is that if “your” niche or issue is something very ineffective (like training guide dogs, which is far less cost-effective than some ways of preventing or reversing blindness in poor countries) then you should change your niche.