Considering that overpopulation is the main threat to the planet's survival, donating to the fight against malaria does not seem to be a priority. Africa's birth rate is already the highest, more children survive than ever. With even higher human population of people who refuse to use birth control, it will be the end of all African forest and animals. Where is my reasoning wrong? I fail to understand how decreasing malaria helps us as species to survive, it seems to accelerate our doom rather. Nobody talks about his aspect anywhere, as if fight ... (read more)
This is a good comment and is a perfect example of why the new system that seperates "upvote/downvote" and "agreement/disagreement" is a good idea.
I notice you haven't been active on the EA Forum since posting this comment. I hope you'll return one day! The downvotes here are likely more because people disagreed with you, not because they didn't appreciate your input. On the comments in newer posts you'll see that it is possible to both appreciate a comment but disagree with its contents (or vice versa think a comment is bad, but agree with its contents).
2
Aaron Gertler
5y
You've brought up a common concern, one that many people have when they first learn about organizations like AMF. I'd recommend reading GiveWell's note on overpopulation on their "Frequently Asked Questions" page.
There are a few core arguments against the points you've made here:
1) Saving the lives of children can actually reduce population growth. Some research shows that birthrates tend to fall as child mortality decreases, because parents can feel more certain that they'll have at least some children who reach adulthood.
(This makes intuitive sense: if you have a three-year-old and a one-year-old in a country where 20% of children die between the ages of three and eighteen, you might want a third child to make sure you have a family legacy/companionship in your old age, where this wouldn't be the case if only 0.2% of children died between those ages.)
2) Overpopulation is good for the world, because every person born has the potential to contribute to solving our problems and making the world a better place. After all, denser cities tend to produce more companies and patents, and some of the world's most crowded nations are among its richest and most productive. A further point: Adding more people to the world could help us develop economically and reach a point where we can easily spread out into places that were previously too expensive/remote to inhabit, whether that's desert land or outer space.
3) Even if overpopulation is bad, it's still good to save the lives of children. Telling parents that they can't protect their families from malaria because we want to protect wildlife seems like the wrong moral path to take.
I won't get into my personal views on these points, but all three present opportunities to reconsider your views, if you'd like.
Considering that overpopulation is the main threat to the planet's survival, donating to the fight against malaria does not seem to be a priority. Africa's birth rate is already the highest, more children survive than ever. With even higher human population of people who refuse to use birth control, it will be the end of all African forest and animals. Where is my reasoning wrong? I fail to understand how decreasing malaria helps us as species to survive, it seems to accelerate our doom rather. Nobody talks about his aspect anywhere, as if fight ... (read more)