Zahra Irfan

1 karmaJoined


Well then, it's truly really hard to choose. Anyone who thinks rationally would go with the option which offers saving more lives but I personally think that the choice of saving 100 people now is still better. We should be open to all possibilities. What I'm going to say now might sound foolish but if we can't find any good solutions by that time we can always dig that waste out (Which isn't possible ik) 👀

Week 5 exercise.

A. I would save 100 people now by hurrying the waste as there are high chances that technology will be advanced after a decade and we might be able to save thousands of people in the future too. I will be working to save thousands of people in the future by contributing to research. B. I'd still be excited as even if it's about someone who isn't born yet I'd still be able to save them.

Part A. 114 lives saved [Medicines For Malaria] 163 lives saved [Helen Keller] 114 lives saved [New incentives]

Part B. I would go with Malaria Consortium. Even though the cost effectiveness of Helen Keller international is higher, the impact isn't exceptionally good. Malaria affects a large number of people and the death rate is higher. Moreover the room left for finding for Malaria Consortium is also higher. We have to make sure we help a large number of people with promising impact. This might be contrary to the decisions of other people but it's based on careful observation.

Part C. I'm interested in the field of medicine. I'm willing to work in the same area. Poverty kills people and mostly the reason is lack of resources for treatment and prevention of deceases. We can treat lack of nutrition via medicine which will not only affect individual lives but will also drastically improve economy.