This is a linkpost for https://youtu.be/ll9myMeFU3g

Rational Animations made this video collaborating with 80,000 Hours. The script has been written by Benjamin Hilton as an adaptation of part of the 80,000 Hours career guide, by Benjamin Todd. I have included the full script below.


It’s easy to feel like one person can’t make a difference.

The problems the world faces seem so vast, and we seem so small. Sometimes even the best of intentions aren't enough to make the world budge.

Now, it’s true that many common ways people try to do good have less impact than you might think at first.

But some ways of doing good have allowed certain people to achieve an extraordinary impact. How is this possible? And what does it mean for how you can make a difference?

We’ll start by looking at doctors — and end up at nuclear war.

Many people train to become doctors because they want to save lives! And, of course, their work is very important. But how many lives does a doctor really save over the course of their career? You might assume it's in the hundreds or thousands. But the surprising truth is that, according to an analysis carried by Dr Greg Lewis — a former medical doctor —  the number is far lower than you'd expect.

Since the 19th century, life expectancy has skyrocketed. But that’s not just because of medicine. There are loads of contributing factors, like nutrition, improved sanitation, and increased wealth. Estimating how many years of life medicine alone saves is really difficult. 

Despite this difficulty, one attempt — from researchers at Harvard and King’s College London — found that medical care in developed countries increases the life expectancy of each person in these countries by around 5 years.

Most developed countries have around 3 doctors per 1,000 people. So, if this estimate is right, each doctor saves around 1,666 years of life, over the course of their career. Using the World Bank’s standard conversion rate of 30 extra years of healthy life to one “life saved,” that’s around about 50 lives saved per doctor!

But that’s actually a substantial overestimate.

Doctors are only one part of the medical system, which also relies on nurses and hospital staff, as well as overhead and equipment. And more importantly, there are already a lot of doctors in the developed world. So if you don’t become a doctor, someone else will be available to perform the most critical procedures. Additional doctors only allow society to carry out additional, usually less significant, procedures.

Look at this graph, from the analysis by Dr. Greg Lewis we quoted earlier. Each point is a country — The vertical axis shows disability-adjusted-life-years per 100-thousand people. You can think of that figure as roughly how many years of disability a group of 100-thousand people has to endure on average. Therefore, the fewer, the better. Each country has a different figure. The horizontal axis shows the number of doctors per 100-thousand people in each country. As you can see, countries with more doctors suffer lower disability.

But notice how the curve goes nearly flat once you have more than 150 doctors per 100-thousand people. After this point (which almost all developed countries meet), additional doctors only achieve a small impact on average. In fact, at 300 doctors per 100-thousand people, an additional doctor saves only around 200 years of life throughout their career.

So, when you take all this into account, including some accounting for the impact of nurses and other parts of the medical system, it looks more like each doctor saves only around 3 lives through the course of their career. Still an admirable achievement, but perhaps less than you may imagine.

But that’s an ordinary doctor. Some doctors have had much more impact than this.

By 1968, we knew how to prevent deaths from cholera. The main cause of death was dehydration due to bad diarrhoea. The treatment for this was relatively cheap: just salt and glucose, dissolved into water. But millions of people were still dying every year.

The problem was that this salt and glucose solution needed to be administered by a feeding tube, or an intravenous drip — straight into the bloodstream. Delivering this kind of treatment is far from simple, which meant that many cholera victims died from extreme dehydration before they could even reach medical care.

Enter Dr. David Nalin. He was an American doctor sent to work at a refugee camp, just on the border of Bangladesh and Myanmar.

In a groundbreaking study, Dr. Nalin showed if everything was dissolved at the right concentration, and consumed at the right rate, just drinking a solution of salt and glucose could rehydrate cholera patients pretty much as effectively as IV fluids. This meant the treatment could be used anywhere, even remote villages, and using only extremely cheap and widely available ingredients.

Since then, this astonishingly simple treatment has been used all over the world, and the annual rate of child deaths from diarrhoea has plummeted from around 5 million to 1.5 million.

If Dr Nalin had not been around, someone else would probably have discovered this treatment eventually. However, even if we imagine that he sped up the roll-out by only five months, his work alone would have saved about 500,000 lives. This is a very approximate estimate, but it makes his impact more than 100,000 times greater than that of an ordinary doctor:

And even just within medical research, Dr Nalin is far from the most extreme example of a high-impact career.

Take blood transfusions. Today, they’re a routine, lifesaving procedure. But over a century ago, transfusions were risky endeavours that often ended in death. At the dawn of the 20th century, doctors simply didn't understand why some blood transfusions worked while others were fatal. Lives were being lost and medicine was stumped.

That all changed thanks to the work of Austrian biologist Karl Landsteiner. In 1901, after years of meticulous laboratory research, Landsteiner identified three blood groups: A, B, and O (although, shockingly, he called “O” “C”). This groundbreaking discovery unlocked the mystery behind the deaths caused by early blood transfusions.

Landsteiner found that transfusions with incompatible blood types often led to potentially fatal outcomes. But when blood types matched between donor and patient, transfusions were safe and effective.

With this knowledge, doctors could begin matching donor and patient blood types for the first time. Landsteiner's insights allowed blood transfusions to save lives instead of endangering them. It was a pivotal advancement in medicine.

The value of Landsteiner's research became abundantly clear during the First World War. Setting up blood banks near field hospitals allowed for rapid access to typed blood to treat wounded soldiers. Transfusions went from risky last resorts to standard life-saving procedures over the course of the war.

In the decades since, Landsteiner's system has enabled millions of successful blood transfusions. Patients with blood loss from trauma or surgery, those undergoing cancer treatment, and many more have benefitted. The analysis by Greg Lewis puts Karl Landsteiner’s discovery of blood groups as saving tens of millions of lives.

This is a very uncertain estimate. It could easily be off by a factor of 10 or more, and seems more likely to be too high than too low. It's possible that speeding up the discovery wouldn't have had much impact at all — most of the lives saved were in the modern era, when people were rapidly gaining access to other medical advancements which could save their lives, or prevent the need for transfusions completely. On the other hand, the discovery of blood groups probably made other scientific advances possible, and we're ignoring their impact. Nevertheless, the basic point stands: Landsteiner's impact was likely vastly greater than even David Nalin’s.

There are also many more examples you don’t hear about, like Viktor Zhdanov. In the 20th century, smallpox killed around 400 million people — far more than died in all the century’s wars and political famines. Zhdanov single-handedly lobbied the World Health Organization to start a campaign which eventually led to the complete elimination of smallpox. Without his involvement, smallpox would not have been eliminated until much later, and possibly not at all.

But who saved the most lives in history?

One top candidate is Stanislav Petrov, a little-known Soviet Lieutenant Colonel who may have saved your life.

It was just another late night shift for Stanislav Petrov in the secret Serpukhov-15 bunker outside Moscow. As a duty officer, he settled into the commander's chair to monitor the Soviet Union's early-warning satellites over the United States. Little did he know this routine shift was about to thrust him into one of the most harrowing incidents of the Cold War.

Petrov’s instructions were clear: if the United States launched nuclear missiles, he was to report that immediately to his superiors, who had a policy of striking back, immediately, with their own nuclear weapons.

Shortly after midnight, the screens showed five ICBMs launched from the United States, heading towards the Soviet Union.

For five excruciating minutes, he turned over the evidence again and again in his mind.

Petrov reasoned that, if the US were starting a nuclear war, they’d probably launch hundreds of missiles, not just five. So he reported it as a false alarm. And he was right — no missiles had in fact been launched. The world was safe, at least for now.

If Petrov had triggered a strike, it’s possible that someone else could have called off the launch process. But there’s at least a reasonable chance that the Soviet Union would have retaliated, and hundreds of millions would have died. The two countries may have even ended up engaged in an all-out nuclear war, leading to billions of deaths.

And Petrov's decision may have done much more than "just" save a billion people from nuclear catastrophe. As we saw in our video on longtermism, focusing on potential risks to the long-term future can be even more high-impact than saving lives today. The nuclear war that Petrov prevented could have devastated scientific, artistic, economic, and all other forms of progress, and possibly even lead to the end of civilisation itself. Every human who will live in the future will be alive, in part, because of Petrov.

So we’ve seen people’s careers have had huge positive effects, some vastly more than others.

A large component is luck — Nalin, Landsteiner, and Petrov were in the right place at the right time. You can’t guarantee you’ll make an important medical discovery.

But it wasn’t all luck: Landsteiner and Nalin chose to use their medical knowledge to solve some of the most devastating health problems of their day. And it was somewhat foreseeable that someone high up in the military of a nuclear power could have the opportunity to prevent nuclear conflict.

What does this mean for you?

People often wonder how they can “make a difference,” but if some careers can result in thousands of times more impact than others, this isn’t the right question. Two different career options can both “make a difference,” but one could be dramatically better than the other.

Instead, the key question is: What are some of the best ways to make a difference? In other words, what can you do to give yourself a chance of having one of the highest-impact careers?

This video was adapted from part of the new 80,000 Hours Career Guide — which attempts to answer exactly that question. 

The guide covers everything you need to know about how to find a fulfilling career that does good, from why you shouldn’t just “follow your passion”, to why medicine and charity work aren’t always the best way to help others.

It’s full of practical tips and exercises, and at the end, you’ll have a draft of your new career plan.

Just go to 80000hours.org/rational to find out more.

We all want to make a difference. If you think carefully about how, the best ways to help others could end up doing a lot more good than you’d ever think possible. Identify society's most pressing problems, develop expertise to address them, and who knows? You might, like Petrov, help to literally save the world.


 

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think this is my favorite so far. There's a certain hope and cozyness radiating from it. Great introduction to the hopeful let's-save-the-world! side of EA that I will send to all my non-EA friends.

Your videos are extremely practical for that purpose. In my experience there's a certain "legitness" that comes with a nicely animated video on YouTube with more than 100k views, that a blog post doesn't have. So thanks! :)

Executive summary: Some individuals have had an outsized positive impact on the world through their careers, suggesting that carefully choosing how to help others can lead to doing far more good than typical paths.

Key points:

  1. Doctors save fewer lives than commonly assumed, around 3 lives per career on average. Some doctors, like Dr. David Nalin who pioneered oral rehydration therapy for cholera, have saved orders of magnitude more.
  2. Karl Landsteiner's discovery of blood types enabled safe blood transfusions, saving tens of millions of lives, though this estimate is highly uncertain.
  3. Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer, may have prevented nuclear war by correctly identifying a false alarm, saving billions of lives and protecting humanity's future.
  4. Luck plays a role in having an outsized impact, but Nalin, Landsteiner and Petrov made choices that put them in high-leverage positions.
  5. Rather than just trying to "make a difference", we should carefully consider the highest-impact ways to help others through our career choices.
  6. The 80,000 Hours Career Guide provides a framework for identifying the most pressing problems and developing expertise to address them.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Career choice