3 ms·

>FTA: Potentially promising problem areas we haven’t yet rated The Copenhagen Consensus is an attempt by economists to rate the cost/benefit of various schemes

>FTA: Potentially promising problem areas we haven’t yet rated The Copenhagen Consensus is an attempt by economists to rate the cost/benefit of various schemes to improve life for humans globally. It was was prompted by the apparent waste of governments committing to billions, if not trillions of dollars towards climate change mitigation efforts, which may or may not provide results. All while people, especially children, are dying from problems that have lower-cost solutions. The question posed is: If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start? 1. Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education 2. Expanding the Subsidy for Malaria Combination Treatment 3. Expanded Childhood Immunization Coverage 4. Deworming of Schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes 5. Expanding Tuberculosis Treatment 6. R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change 7. Investing in Effective Early Warning Systems to protect populations against natural disaster 8. Strengthening Surgical Capacity 9. Hepatitis B Immunization 10. Using Low‐Cost Drugs in the case of Acute Heart Attacks in poorer nations (these are already available in developed countries) Note: No AI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus

bkmartin 9y ago
Why not clean water for everyone? $75bln all but solve the problem. This would dramatically decrease the number of sick and dying children, free up hours a day for things like schooling and other work opportunities, and help more people farm their own food. We have all the technology it just has to be deployed. We have made huge progress the last 10-15 years...we just need a big push to the finish.
- BenjaminTodd 9y ago
  More info on the pros and cons of water: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-consensus-water-and-sanitation-assessment-hutton http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-con... http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/03/reservations-water-quality-interventions/ http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/03/reservations-water-quali...
shoo 9y ago
thanks for offering this competing list of priorities. To offer a couple of counter points from the linked wikipedia article: * the Copenhagen Consensus' fixed budget of $75b prevents truly large problems from being in scope; and * curiously overpopulation wasn't addressed as a priority by the panel I'll offer a few provocative Garrett Hardin quotes: > We summarize the situation by saying: 'There is a shortage of food.' Why don't we say, 'There is a longage of people'? > Exponential growth is kept under control by misery. > What features of your daily life do you expect to be improved by a further increase in population? I think efforts to give women more options than having large families should be highly prioritised (e.g. family planning, education, economic opportunities). This is the case in the developing and developed world.
BenjaminTodd 9y ago
We're a fan of CCC - they're one of the main resources we've drawn upon, and we agree with many of these recommendations under the heading of global health. However, they focus on what will most help the global poor in the near term. We're interested in considering the full range of issues, especially those that are important from the perspective of the long-term future (for reasons explained in the article).

bkmartin 9y ago

Why not clean water for everyone? $75bln all but solve the problem. This would dramatically decrease the number of sick and dying children, free up hours a day for things like schooling and other work opportunities, and help more people farm their own food. We have all the technology it just has to be deployed. We have made huge progress the last 10-15 years...we just need a big push to the finish.

BenjaminTodd 9y ago
More info on the pros and cons of water: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-consensus-water-and-sanitation-assessment-hutton http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/publication/post-2015-con... http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/03/reservations-water-quality-interventions/ http://blog.givewell.org/2016/05/03/reservations-water-quali...

shoo 9y ago

thanks for offering this competing list of priorities. To offer a couple of counter points from the linked wikipedia article: * the Copenhagen Consensus' fixed budget of $75b prevents truly large problems from being in scope; and * curiously overpopulation wasn't addressed as a priority by the panel I'll offer a few provocative Garrett Hardin quotes: > We summarize the situation by saying: 'There is a shortage of food.' Why don't we say, 'There is a longage of people'? > Exponential growth is kept under control by misery. > What features of your daily life do you expect to be improved by a further increase in population? I think efforts to give women more options than having large families should be highly prioritised (e.g. family planning, education, economic opportunities). This is the case in the developing and developed world.

BenjaminTodd 9y ago

We're a fan of CCC - they're one of the main resources we've drawn upon, and we agree with many of these recommendations under the heading of global health. However, they focus on what will most help the global poor in the near term. We're interested in considering the full range of issues, especially those that are important from the perspective of the long-term future (for reasons explained in the article).