• pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is a danish researcher called Björn Lomborg who has been researching this type of question a lot. He tends to get a lot of hate because the most cost efficient ways to spend money to do good isn’t what people want it to be.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Iirc, micronutrients and HIV prevention, followed by preventing malaria. The idea is that we spend a little money now, to make many people grow up and be healthy, which avoids big costs to societies while at the same time generating people who can contribute more to the same societies. Many people want to solve the climate first, but it’s very expensive for very little return. In an ideal world we would solve all the problems, but… we don’t. So if we have limited resources, we should spend it where it does most long-term good. It’s not a bad idea to do good things for the climate, but if we have to choose between things to do, it gives little benefit per dollar compared to other things.