I agree that most GHD donors donāt consciously conceive of things as Iāve suggested. But I think the most coherent idealization of their preferences would lead in the direction Iām suggesting. Itās even possible that they are subconsciously (and imperfectly) tracking something like my suggestion. It would be interesting to see whether most accept or reject the idea that fetal anesthesia or (say) elder care are ārelevantly similarā to saving children. Since metrics like QALYs (esp. for young people) and income-doublings correlate strongly with capacity growth, I donāt take them to be evidence either way.
I also agree that my suggested reconceptualization could lead to some broader changes to the GHD portfolio, though itās important not to forget the ārobustā part of it. If you have a pessimistic prior about narrowly-targeted attempts to improve the long-term future, general improvements to human health, education, and economic growth seem like a pretty natural alternative to me.
But Iām afraid Iāve gotten pretty far astray from the topic of your original post! Iāve drafted up an attempt to explain my views on EA ācause bucketsā more fully, and will aim to post it tomorrow. [Update: here!] Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.
Thanks, this has been a helpful discussion.
I agree that most GHD donors donāt consciously conceive of things as Iāve suggested. But I think the most coherent idealization of their preferences would lead in the direction Iām suggesting. Itās even possible that they are subconsciously (and imperfectly) tracking something like my suggestion. It would be interesting to see whether most accept or reject the idea that fetal anesthesia or (say) elder care are ārelevantly similarā to saving children. Since metrics like QALYs (esp. for young people) and income-doublings correlate strongly with capacity growth, I donāt take them to be evidence either way.
I also agree that my suggested reconceptualization could lead to some broader changes to the GHD portfolio, though itās important not to forget the ārobustā part of it. If you have a pessimistic prior about narrowly-targeted attempts to improve the long-term future, general improvements to human health, education, and economic growth seem like a pretty natural alternative to me.
But Iām afraid Iāve gotten pretty far astray from the topic of your original post! Iāve drafted up an attempt to explain my views on EA ācause bucketsā more fully, and will aim to post it tomorrow. [Update: here!] Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.