• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Replaceability: thinking on the margin

    April 3rd, 2012
    giving  [html]
    Consider a surgeon: how many lives does she save in her career? [1] Perhaps she does 6-9 surgeries per week of which 2 are life-saving, working 45 weeks per year from age 25 to 70. Multiplying up we get 4000 life-saving surgeries. This is pretty good: to get similar results by giving to GiveWell's current top charity you'd need to donate $200,000 every year for forty years.

    But let's imagine she gets sick of the job and retires early, at 47. What happens to the people that she would have been operating on? The other doctors work somewhat more to keep the operating room staffed while the hospital hires a replacement. The 2,000 lives she would have saved in the remainder of her career end up being saved by other surgeons.

    What is the positive effect of becoming a surgeon, then, if anything you do someone else would probably do instead? Perhaps you're an unusually good one, managing a success rate much better than the person who'd be in your place. Perhaps you save 4,400 lives over your career while your replacement would save only 4,000. This is 400 people who get to keep living because you chose surgery instead of some non-lifesaving job.

    We tend to be optimistic about our abilities, however, so we should acknowledge that you could just as well have a success rate much worse than your replacement. If you save 3,600 lives instead of 4,000 you are effectively killing 400 people over your career.

    We need to make a distinction between the good that happens because of our choices and the good that happens through us but because of other people's choices. Would the people employing you just hire someone else to do the same thing if you weren't there? If you're in a position to target your work, however, perhaps as an academic choosing to work on existential risk, a doctor raising money and building institutions to help especially poor people, or a research analyst starting a charity evaluator, then you're doing more. This is a big reason that the earning to give approach is sensible: the people you displace in choosing a relatively high paying job wouldn't be donating very much.

    If you're choosing a career in part for altruistic reasons you need to consider replaceability: how much more good would you be doing than the person you'd replace?


    [1] This is all written in terms of "lives saved", but I realize that this isn't the best metric. It's just an easy one to think about, and a good approximation for what we do care about.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Collections: The Queen’s Latin or Who Were the Romans? Part IV: The Color of Purple

    This is the fourth part (I, II, III) of our series asking the question “Who were the Romans?” and contrasting the answer we get from the historical evidence with the pop-cultural image of the Romans as a culturally and ethnically homogeneous society typic…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry July 23, 2021

    The Leakage Problem

    I’ve spent more than ten years talking about the cost of construction of physical infrastructure, starting with subways and then branching on to other things, most. And yet there’s a problem of comparable size when discussing infrastructure waste, which, …

    via Pedestrian Observations July 23, 2021

    Songs about terrible relationships

    [Spoilers for several old musicals.] TV Tropes lists dozens of examples of the “I want” song (where the hero of a musical sings about their dream of escaping their small surroundings). After watching a bunch of musicals on maternity leave, I’m wondering h…

    via The whole sky July 17, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact