> It seems like you think maximum efficiency is achieved by taking 'lives saved' / 'dollars spent'. I never actually said this; "more people alive in 20 years"

> It seems like you think maximum efficiency is achieved by taking 'lives saved' / 'dollars spent'. I never actually said this; "more people alive in 20 years" was an example. My main point was not "this future is better than that future", but "it is possible to decide which of these two futures is likely to be better". This is also why I'm not accounting for 'improvements in peoples lives'. Not because we shouldn't account for that, but because accounting for it was beside the point. That said, I think this would be a reasonable first-order estimate when it comes to comparing two charities. But I don't expect to ever be in a situation where a first-order estimate is all I can make. And yes, I currently think the "malaria" world would be better than the "batmobile" world. I haven't thought about it very hard, so maybe I'm wrong. > And why are we responsible for everyone? If I can make a small improvement here or a large improvement in Africa, why would I not choose Africa? (The improvement sizes should be assumed to have already taken into account things like funds being redirected, and all the other reasons why charities might sometimes not be efficient.) > Why do you have to shit on people doing good work here I'm not trying to shit on him.