How important do you think reducing the risk of human extinction is, compared to giving foreign aid?
These are not parallel things, because in one choice, an effect is achieved and in the other, money is put to acheving an effect. The following are parallel:
How important do you think reducing the risk of human extinction is, compared to influencing foreign countries to treat their people well and not wage war?
How important do you think spending money to try and reduce the risk of human extinction is, compared to giving foreign aid?
A better question would be to ask what percentage of the Federal budget should be spent on it, or how much money should be borrowed per year to spend on it. The foreign aid bit is too ideological, and the answer will depend on a variable—what people think is spent on foreign aid.
Thanks for your suggestions. I agree that foreign aid is too political, but it may well be that some people consider waging war an extinction risk, which is why I don’t think it’s a good alternative for comparison.
It isn’t meant to be an alternative, that’s a rephrasing of how I think of foreign aid’s purpose, which reinforces why it’s a bad idea to introduce something political that is thought of differently by each of your subjects.
When I think of foreign aid, I think of giving Egypt and Jordan vouchers for American weapons as a bribe not to attack Israel, giving the same to Israel so they don’t fall behind, and giving the same to Pakistan so they don’t attack India or Americans in Afghanistan.
What’s wrong with asking how much money should be borrowed to pay for it or how much all programs should be cut percentage wise to pay for it? You won’t find an apolitical political program to compare X-risk spending to.
These are not parallel things, because in one choice, an effect is achieved and in the other, money is put to acheving an effect. The following are parallel:
How important do you think reducing the risk of human extinction is, compared to influencing foreign countries to treat their people well and not wage war?
How important do you think spending money to try and reduce the risk of human extinction is, compared to giving foreign aid?
A better question would be to ask what percentage of the Federal budget should be spent on it, or how much money should be borrowed per year to spend on it. The foreign aid bit is too ideological, and the answer will depend on a variable—what people think is spent on foreign aid.
Thanks for your suggestions. I agree that foreign aid is too political, but it may well be that some people consider waging war an extinction risk, which is why I don’t think it’s a good alternative for comparison.
It isn’t meant to be an alternative, that’s a rephrasing of how I think of foreign aid’s purpose, which reinforces why it’s a bad idea to introduce something political that is thought of differently by each of your subjects.
When I think of foreign aid, I think of giving Egypt and Jordan vouchers for American weapons as a bribe not to attack Israel, giving the same to Israel so they don’t fall behind, and giving the same to Pakistan so they don’t attack India or Americans in Afghanistan.
Oops, then I misunderstood you.
I wonder if it’s possible to find something that is both seen as good by almost everyone and specific enough.
What’s wrong with asking how much money should be borrowed to pay for it or how much all programs should be cut percentage wise to pay for it? You won’t find an apolitical political program to compare X-risk spending to.