What is that even supposed to mean? For one thing, I don't think it's necessarily irrefutable, but don't most people (even most good people) act more or less like that anyway, regardless of whether they are "convinced" by it? Virtually no-one even tries to maximize the good they do if you measure "good" as "human QALYs saved anywhere on Earth at the present time with high certainty". Even what the SIAI is doing seems far closer to Folding to me than it does to "giving money to starving Africans".
What is that even supposed to mean?
It means what you said is true and irrelevant. I would not notice if they lived or not. That doesn't matter to my ethics. What good are they to me? Probably nothing; my track record on investing in charitable donations is precisely -100% (none have ever even paid interest!). That doesn't matter to my ethics.
If you are going to attack consequentialism or valuing people besides oneself, this is entirely the wrong place to do so, and makes about as much sense as discussing Nagarjuna's arguments that nothing exists as a re...
Latest in an irregular series, some of whose previous entries were Edge.org and the Girl Scouts...
I examine the Folding@home distributed computing project with reference to the costs (electricity resulting in air pollution causing deaths) and benefits (some papers): http://www.gwern.net/Charity is not about helping. Additional data on either side of the cost-benefit is welcome.
(I also recently split out my essay describing things I have changed my mind on.)