4 ms·
I wouldn't allocate money solely on the scale of the problem faced. I'd allocate it according to where it has the best utility. And several billion towards mala
by ChrisLomont 4y ago
I wouldn't allocate money solely on the scale of the problem faced. I'd allocate it according to where it has the best utility. And several billion towards malaria is likely a much better outcome for humanity than a few billion towards climate change. It will move the needle more for on malaria than for climate change.
- t_mann 4y agoI guess it's a matter of personal preference. If I was rich to the point that I could focus entirely on having an impact instead of making money, I'd basically ask myself a variation of Hamming's questions (originally meant as advice for academic researchers: 1. What are the most important problems in your field? 2. Are you working on one of them? 3. Why not?).
- ChrisLomont 4y agoTo maximize impact you again should spend money not on the hardest problems, but on those where the money has the biggest impact. It's the definition :) Consider two problems: one makes everyone's life 5% better and costs $100 to solve. One makes lives 20% better and costs $1 trillion. You have $100. Where does your money have the biggest impact? This is malaria and climate change.