If you cut the estimate by 75%, down to about $500/mo the argument doesn’t change very substantially. That money could certainly directly save more lives and could indirectly be used to get more than one person to do good.
If you cut the estimate by 75%, down to about $500/mo the argument doesn’t change very substantially.
Does the argument change substantially if you cut the estimate down to the price of the standard unit of indulgence, a Starbucks latte?
If the price of raising children becomes arbitrarily cheap, will someone eventually buy the entire market?
If you cut the estimate by 75%, down to about $500/mo the argument doesn’t change very substantially. That money could certainly directly save more lives and could indirectly be used to get more than one person to do good.
Does the argument change substantially if you cut the estimate down to the price of the standard unit of indulgence, a Starbucks latte?
If the price of raising children becomes arbitrarily cheap, will someone eventually buy the entire market?