= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Aug. 03 - Aug. 09, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (177)
I'd like a quick peer review of some low-hanging fruit in the area of effective altruism.
I see that donating blood is rarely talked about in effective altruism articles; in fact, I've only found one reference to it on Less Wrong.
I am also told by those organizations that want me to donate blood that each donation (one pint) will save "up to three lives". For all I know all sites are parroting information provided by the Red Cross, and of course the Red Cross is highly motivated to exaggerate the benefit of donating blood; "up to three" is probably usually closer to "one" in practice.
But even so, if you can save one life by donating blood, and can donate essentially for free (or nearly so), and can donate up to 6.5 times per year...
...and if the expected ROI for monetary donation is in the thousands of dollars for each life, then giving blood is a great deal.
Am I missing anything?
And as a corollary, should I move my charitable giving to bribing people to donate blood whenever there is a shortage?
A core idea of EA is the marginal value of a donation. The marginal value of an additional person donating blood is certainly less than a live saved.
Certainly not. Finding funding to have enough blood donations isn't a problem. Our medical system has enough money to pay people in times of shortage.
But it doesn't want to pay people. The average quality of blood of people who have to be bribed is lower than the average quality of people who donate blood to help their fellow citizens.
I think you are often right about the marginal utility of blood. However, it is worth noting that the Red Cross both pesters people to give blood (a lot, even if you request them directly not to multiple times), and that they offer rewards for blood -- usually a t-shirt or a hat, but recently I've been getting $5 gift cards. Obviously, this is not intended to directly indicate the worth of the blood, but these factors do indicate that bribery and coercion is alive and well.
EDIT: The FDA prohibits any gifts to blood donors in excess of $25 in cumulative value.
It is also worth noting that there is a thriving industry paying for blood plasma, which may indicate that certain types of blood donation are significantly more valuable than others (plasma are limited use, but can be given regardless of blood type).