Nah, they simply won’t notice the death rate increase without statistics, doesn’t mean it won’t be increasing; when you have population of camels under the load that breaks significant percentage of camel backs… adding extra weight has linear effect for small weights.
The reason it is a fairly productive topic wrt charity (in general), is that it is easy to rationalize lack of action, but it is harder to rationalize positive action that kills. Yes, theoretically, biases are bad for giving, practically, eliminating biases in giving decreases the giving (i think there was even a link to a study posted here, about that). People are biased and imperfect and are more likely to donate to better causes if one is aware that one is committing action that kills, rather than mere inaction.
Nah, they simply won’t notice the death rate increase without statistics, doesn’t mean it won’t be increasing; when you have population of camels under the load that breaks significant percentage of camel backs… adding extra weight has linear effect for small weights.
The reason it is a fairly productive topic wrt charity (in general), is that it is easy to rationalize lack of action, but it is harder to rationalize positive action that kills. Yes, theoretically, biases are bad for giving, practically, eliminating biases in giving decreases the giving (i think there was even a link to a study posted here, about that). People are biased and imperfect and are more likely to donate to better causes if one is aware that one is committing action that kills, rather than mere inaction.