Jamie Loftus

Nobody's ever been presented with that choice at any point in the history of the human race.

That is not not a reason.

That is not a there's no point to that ethical argument.

You're not smart for debating it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It makes no fucking sense.

There's like bits of it that are reasonable, which is that like, well, you know, it makes sense to like, look at the best thing you can do financially, you know, in terms of donating money is, uh, you know, malaria prevention.

Cause it winds up being the most cost effective thing, but it's like, okay, does that mean we shouldn't put money into making the water in Flint, Michigan drinkable?

And a lot of these guys will say no, because that's not the best use of money.

And it's like, well, we can do many things with money, especially if we tax billionaires and put it towards rebuilding infrastructure.

Um,

A number of things can be done.

What?

McCaskill kind of pills this guy on effective altruism.

He frames it as a strategic investment whose success was measured in population's worth of human lives.

He estimated using back of the envelope math that $2,000 could save one life.

And so a million dollars could save 500 people.

A billion could save half a million.

And a trillion dollars could theoretically save half a billion lives.