When we talk about how much impact something has, or how much good it does, we mean, as previously mentioned, the extent to which it improves the well-being of others. Problems are therefore larger in scale if:
More individuals are affected
The effect per individual is greater
The effect lasts over time
Decades of research have shown that our intuition is bad at dealing with differences in scale. For example, one study found that people were willing to pay about as much to save 2,000 birds from drowning in oil as 200,000. This type of bias is called scope neglect. If we want to do as much good as possible, we need to manage differences in scale more rationally. Therefore, before choosing a problem, ask yourself how many people would be better off if progress were made in the field. Are we talking about ten individuals? Thousand? A million? Solving ten percent of a big problem is better than solving ten percent of a small one.
A consequence of this criterion is that it could be very promising to solve problems that affect future generations. Just as our world is largely the result of the work of previous generations, our actions have consequences for those who come after us. Most of everyone expected to live is likely not yet born. If we want to improve for as many as possible, one of our best options could therefore be to ensure that the future is as good as possible for future generations. These arguments come from a school of thought called longtermism and, as we shall see, it has implications for which problems appear as urgent to prioritize.
Read more
Is this problem large in scale? – article by 80,000 Hours
Introducing longtermism – article by 80,000 Hours
What are the most important moral problems of our time? – TED Talk by William MacAskill