The math here is scary. If you spitball the regulatory cost of life for a Westerner, it’s around seven million dollars. To a certain extent, I’m pretty sure that that’s high because the costs of over-regulating are less salient to regulators than the costs of under-regulating, but taken at face value, that means that, apparently, thirty-five hundred poor African kids are equivalent to one American.
Hilariously, the IPCC got flak from anti-globalization activists for positing a fifteen-to-one ratio in the value of life between developed and developing nations.
Aren’t you using different measures of what ‘saving a life’ is, anyway? The starving-child-save gives you about 60 years of extra life, whereas the FAI save gives something rather more.
According to GiveWell, you could save ten people with that much.
The math here is scary. If you spitball the regulatory cost of life for a Westerner, it’s around seven million dollars. To a certain extent, I’m pretty sure that that’s high because the costs of over-regulating are less salient to regulators than the costs of under-regulating, but taken at face value, that means that, apparently, thirty-five hundred poor African kids are equivalent to one American.
Hilariously, the IPCC got flak from anti-globalization activists for positing a fifteen-to-one ratio in the value of life between developed and developing nations.
To save ten lives via FAI, you have to accelerate FAI development by 6 seconds.
...then what are you doing here? Get back to work!
Advocacy and movement-building?
Aren’t you using different measures of what ‘saving a life’ is, anyway? The starving-child-save gives you about 60 years of extra life, whereas the FAI save gives something rather more.
You can do a thousand times better (very conservatively) if you expand your domain of consideration beyond homo sapiens.
Even better!
Ten is better than hundreds?
No, but people act like it is.