man i couldn't get past some of the bad examples in this essay:

​

>It costs significantly more than most people think to save a life by donating to the most effective charities — about $2,300. But that’s still only about half as much as the average American spends at restaurants each year.

this is a very poor comparison. restaurants provide food, employment, familial and social engagement which are all critically valuable for a social species. the idea that there's a moral dilemma between eating and saving a life (and that both can't be had) is ludicrous to me.

​

>Imagine your younger sibling is going off the rails – drinking too much and partying too hard. Their grades are suffering. Your sibling doesn’t listen to your parents but they look up to you; you know they will listen in the end. So you know that you, and only you, can intervene and make them get back on track. You can sit them down and have the difficult conversation that neither of you want to have. In other words, you have a great degree of control over your sibling.

i'm familiar with alcoholism/addiction and the idea that "the looked-up-to sibling" can simply sit down and have a talk with an alcoholic and thereby save their life is extremely naïve. not only do people not have that control but it ties in with a common cycle of dependence that makes the problem worse.

there might be more substance to this essay than i can see but, trying hard, i can't make sense out of it.