anonymous mouse

6 karmaJoined


Someday I will write a piece on how disability rights and EA are often compatible, if we discard Singer's (disgusting) takes on infanticide and truly value ALL lives.  Our focus on QALYs makes currently EA an extremely uncomfortable place to be disabled.  (I could write a whole piece on that too.). Nearly every global health piece I read reminds me that my life is worth less than other people's, which honestly I do not love.  But if we take all lives to be worth saving, EA can be a powerful way to support disabled people.

Disability is more common in the developing world than the developed, and often the people in most need are disabled.  The poorest of the poor - the people EA is likely to be most concerned about - are often disabled.  When EAs send money through GiveDirectly, they are directly supporting the livelihoods of quite a few disabled people.  (A rough estimate would suggest perhaps a quarter of GiveDirectly's recipients are disabled.)

And in the developing world, disabled people are often not more resource-intensive to support than able-bodied people.  The treatments and support needed for disabled people in poor contexts are often cheap enough to be perfectly EA-compatible.  (E.g. economic growth - something EAs frequently discuss as something we should support more - may lift all boats, but it is extra important for disabled people to have work options that are not physical labor.  So growth of a services sector can be useful to disabled people.). Development is disability justice.