So to give a concrete example: less than 1% of the population worldwide have type 1 diabetes. Maybe your money would be better spent on type 2 diabetes, with 8% of the world’s population having that. Does this mean those with type 1 are unimportant or unworthy of funding?
Assuming it was equally tractable to make progress on both types of diabetes, and both currently received the same amount of funding, EAs would tend to say you should favour type 2 research. If enough people started to fund type 2, the cost-effectiveness of marginal dollars there would likely fall (because the low-hanging fruit were already picked), so work on type 1 would become more attractive on the margin. So basically, assuming equal tractability, if EA would likely target most but probably not all dollars be focused on the more numerous condition, and each individual should donate so as to help move the world towards this optimal equilibrium.
I also wouldn’t consider people with type 1 to be in any way morally inferior to those with type 2. There are just less of them, and all the extra people in the larger group matter.
Assuming it was equally tractable to make progress on both types of diabetes, and both currently received the same amount of funding, EAs would tend to say you should favour type 2 research. If enough people started to fund type 2, the cost-effectiveness of marginal dollars there would likely fall (because the low-hanging fruit were already picked), so work on type 1 would become more attractive on the margin. So basically, assuming equal tractability, if EA would likely target most but probably not all dollars be focused on the more numerous condition, and each individual should donate so as to help move the world towards this optimal equilibrium.
I also wouldn’t consider people with type 1 to be in any way morally inferior to those with type 2. There are just less of them, and all the extra people in the larger group matter.