In our world, we also save many people, even when they can't pay for it. And when we don't, we at least admit that it's a problem. (At least in public. In pr

In our world, we also save many people, even when they can't pay for it. And when we don't, we at least admit that it's a problem. (At least in public. In private, I can totally imagine many people having no problem whatsoever with people dying by the millions.) You're living proof of this. (Me… less so. I don't donate much.) Amalcom on the other hand formulated things in such a way that it would be normal, expected to receive no outside help from the future. I disagree with that assumption. Expecting from the outset that the future will not help us is ludicrous. It's not guaranteed, but come on, we still have people like you, philanthropists, governments, and mutual funds —there's some things to say about the effectiveness of collective action vs individual choice: it's easier to donate or pay up when you know you're not alone. So I ask again: in what kind of bleak world would NO ONE be willing to pay?