Don't the last couple paragraphs about smallpox imply that we shouldn't actually be donating to stop malaria, but rather whichever disease we have the greatest chance of eradicating right now, even if its not actually directly saving very many l people? I'm sure the last few smallpox victims weren't very cost effective to treat, in terms of lives saved per dollar. But then if you accept that then you accept that future people count, and all of a sudden the math on existential risk dwarfs any disease we might eradicate.
How do you balance between treatment, prevention, research on the problem, and background research (more knowledge of biology, more math, better computers and computer programs)?
Don't the last couple paragraphs about smallpox imply that we shouldn't actually be donating to stop malaria, but rather whichever disease we have the greatest chance of eradicating right now, even if its not actually directly saving very many l people? I'm sure the last few smallpox victims weren't very cost effective to treat, in terms of lives saved per dollar. But then if you accept that then you accept that future people count, and all of a sudden the math on existential risk dwarfs any disease we might eradicate.
How do you balance between treatment, prevention, research on the problem, and background research (more knowledge of biology, more math, better computers and computer programs)?