Instead of buying swimming pools for their garden, they donate the money to NGO’s that distribute vaccines. Hundreds of thousands construction workers would lose their job.
I agree that any time you spend money on one thing instead of something else, you’re missing the good that could have come out of one thing. But it’s still better to spend money on some things than other things. There is no choice that has no downsides. And even if there were, I would prefer a choice with small downside and large upside over a choice with zero upside and zero downside.
By stating that you can save a life for $5000, Give Well applies that if there only is enough money provided, everyone could be saved from Malaria. However, no matter how many bed nets are distributed, there will still be people dying from Malaria since they can be infected during the day.
I don’t think you are correctly applying marginal thinking. GiveWell doesn’t need to claim that $5000 spent sufficiently many times can prevent every death due to malaria. It only needs that $5000 can save a marginal life, which it can.
I agree that any time you spend money on one thing instead of something else, you’re missing the good that could have come out of one thing. But it’s still better to spend money on some things than other things. There is no choice that has no downsides. And even if there were, I would prefer a choice with small downside and large upside over a choice with zero upside and zero downside.
I don’t think you are correctly applying marginal thinking. GiveWell doesn’t need to claim that $5000 spent sufficiently many times can prevent every death due to malaria. It only needs that $5000 can save a marginal life, which it can.