How to Choose Which Causes and Problems to Prioritize and Which Strategies Are Best?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VIII, p. 9 of the PDF edition · English translation

1.1. Introduction

There are many causes in the world, each dealing with important problems. How do we choose which of them to devote ourselves to and which problems to prioritize within those causes?

The following answers are very common:

(1) We should prioritize causes that aim to help humans. (2) Each person should choose the causes and problems they most sympathize with, or that have something to do with their life story. (3) All causes and problems are equally important (so we should divide our dedication equally among each cause and each problem within each cause).

In contrast to all these answers, there is another possibility:

(4) Having the goal of making the world a less bad place in the most efficient way possible, that is, doing the greatest good possible given the resources available to us (money and time spent, for example).

If we adopt this goal, we will need to assess which causes to prioritize, which problems to prioritize within those causes, and which strategies are best for addressing them¹. This is because of the following:

• Different causes deal with problems that affect different numbers of victims, with suffering of different magnitudes and different mortality rates.
• In addition, different causes are neglected to a greater or lesser degree, which is reflected in the number of activists and the amount of resources available to them.
• Finally, depending on whether we apply a given resource to this or that problem, and on whether we use this or that strategy to try to solve the problem we have selected, we will do more or less good.

This is one of the most important decisions because, depending on how we decide, we will be more or less efficient at reducing what is bad in the world. Moreover, as we will see in the following chapters, if we do not make a good choice, we even run the risk of unintentionally increasing suffering and death in the world even further.

Below we will look at some criteria that can help us with this kind of decision.

1.2. How serious is the situation?

A first type of criterion for choosing which causes to prioritize and which problems to prioritize within those causes is how serious each situation addressed is (which is sometimes called the scale of harm). Of course, people disagree about which criteria to use to assess how serious a situation is. However, two criteria are widely accepted: the number of victims and how bad the victims’ situation is. For this reason, the examples below use these two criteria, but it is important to remember that there may be others (such as the levels of inequality among the victims, for example).

One difficulty when we have more than one criterion for assessing the seriousness of a situation is that they may point in the same direction sometimes, but in opposite directions at other times. For example, sometimes the problem with the greatest number of victims is also the one in which the victims are in the worst situation. At other times one problem has more victims, but it is another one in which the victims are in a worse situation. When the parameters do not coincide, how should we proceed? There are several possibilities. Below we will look at some of them.

(1) Choosing on the basis of only one of the parameters. However, one criticism of this method is that it seems arbitrary to choose one of the two. If it is the number of victims, why not the seriousness of the victims’ situation, and vice versa?

(2) Establishing a fixed hierarchy between the parameters. However, one difficulty for this method would be to show why one of the parameters, and not the other, would be the most important. Moreover, there are both situations in which it seems preferable to help a much larger number of victims, even if they are not in the worst situation, and situations in which it seems preferable to help victims who are in a much worse situation, even if they are not the majority.

(3) Relying on the total net balance of suffering. This is obtained by adding up the suffering of each victim. For example, if in a certain problem we have victim A with -35 of suffering and victim B with -10, the total aggregate balance is -45. According to this method, the number of victims and how serious each victim’s situation is do not matter in themselves: they matter only indirectly, insofar as they influence the total aggregate balance. However, one criticism of this method is that it could consider more serious a situation that has a much larger number of victims, but in which each one individually suffers a far milder harm.

(4) Giving weight proportional to the seriousness of the situation. This method is also based on the total net balance of suffering, but in it the weight of each individual is proportional to how bad their situation is (the worse it is, the more weight it has). This method largely avoids the problem of the previous method but, in certain cases, it could still consider more serious a situation in which a majority had much smaller harms. However, for this to happen under this method, the size of that majority would have to be much larger than under the previous method.

(5) Establishing absolute priority lines. In this method, a level of well-being is stipulated below which a situation of the individuals is the most serious, no matter how many more individuals above that level other situations involve.

(6) Establishing variable priority lines. This method is similar to the previous one, with the difference that, beyond a certain number of victims who are above the threshold level (for example, N times greater than the number of victims below it) but who are still in a bad situation, the situation of that majority is considered more serious.

These are just a few examples of methods, but there are others. For reasons of space, we will not discuss here which methods are best. These difficulties should not lead us to think that there is no way of assessing which situation is more serious. Even if we cannot achieve precision in these assessments, trying to make them is more likely to bring better results than deciding at random. This is a challenge we will have to face if our goal is to be efficient in the help we can give.

Moreover, even if we did not reach any satisfactory conclusion in situations where the parameters conflict, there are many situations in which the problem with the greatest number of victims is also the problem in which the victims are in the worst situation. The various situations in which nonhuman animals find themselves, whether those exploited by humans² or those who live in the wild³, are good examples of this today.

1.3. How much of the problem can we try to solve?

Suppose we had reached a conclusion about which problems are most serious. Do we then already have an answer about which situations to prioritize? Not yet, for the following reason: it is possible that nothing can be done to help some of the victims of certain situations. We need to investigate how tractable each problem is (for this reason, this parameter is called tractability). It is illustrated by the following example.

Consider the following three pieces of information:

• Problem A affects 900,000 victims.
• Problem B affects 500,000 victims.
• All the victims of A and B are in equally bad situations.

If we rely only on how serious each situation is, we will prioritize problem A.

However, let us now add the following information:

• Regarding the 900,000 victims of A, the best we could do with the resources available to us is to help 400,000 of them: there is nothing we can do to help the other 500,000 (unfortunately, they are already doomed).
• Regarding the 500,000 victims of B, on the other hand, it is possible to help 450,000 of them, providing them with the same amount of benefit we would provide to the 400,000 victims of problem A with the same resources.

Thus, taking into account the part of each situation that can be improved, we have a reason to prioritize problem B because, although A is a worse situation, it is B that presents the worse situation that can be improved.

Important: the tractability of each problem is changeable, since it depends on the technology available at the time. That is, a problem that is not very tractable today may become more tractable in the future, depending on how much we invest in researching how to solve it.

1.4. Choosing the best solutions

1.4.1. The importance of the amount of benefit we could produce

The previous criteria are important for detecting which problems deserve to be the focus of our attention. However, they do not help us find out which solutions would be the most efficient. For that, we have to estimate the amount of benefit that would be produced if we invested a certain amount of resources in this or that problem⁴. Below is an example that illustrates the importance of this parameter and shows how it relates to the criteria we saw earlier for selecting the most important problems.

Consider the following:

• Problem A has 100 victims, each with a suffering of -50.
• Problem B has 90 victims, each with a suffering of -40.

Problem A is more serious, whether by the criterion of the number of victims or by the criterion of the seriousness of each victim’s situation. Imagine also that it is possible to help all the victims of both problems. That is, the problems are equally tractable.

However, imagine that, with the same amount of resources, our only options are:

• Either moving all the victims of A from -50 to -49 (a very slight relief).
• Or moving all the victims of B from -40 to -10 (a considerable improvement).

In this case, by prioritizing problem B we would do much more good with the same amount of resources.

1.4.2. Is the amount of benefit always the most important factor?

What we saw above does not mean that the size of the benefit will necessarily always be the decisive factor. For example, depending on the situation, we might prefer to produce a slightly smaller total benefit that was directed to victims who are in a much worse situation, or that helped a much larger number of victims. For example, suppose that, in the example above, the decision were between:

• Either moving the 100 victims of problem A from -50 to -30. Total benefit = 2,000,
• Or moving the 90 victims of problem B from -40 to -10. Total benefit = 2,700.

In this case, some people would say that we should choose the first option (since that way the benefit goes to the victims who are in the worst situation, and it goes to a larger number of victims), even though with the second option we would produce a greater benefit (whether in terms of the benefit to each victim or in terms of total benefit, obtained by multiplying the number of victims by the benefit each would receive).

But how do we know when the amount of benefit weighs more and when the seriousness of the situation weighs more? There are several possible ways to proceed. The criteria could be equivalent to some of those we saw in section 1.2. One example would be to seek to maximize benefits, but stipulating that a unit of benefit has more value the more serious the problem it would be directed to (this would be the equivalent of criterion 4 in section 1.2).

1.5. To do the greatest good possible, we need to take the long term into account

Another important thing to consider when assessing the efficiency of each strategy is its impact over time⁵. Thus, if the goal is to do the greatest good possible, then we have to try to estimate the long-term consequences of each strategy.

For example, when comparing two strategies, it is possible that one produces more benefits initially, but that, taking into account the long-term effects of each, it is the other that will produce a greater total benefit over time. For example, it may be that a certain

strategy helps more animals in the short term, but that its impact gradually diminishes over time, while another, despite helping fewer animals initially, has a “snowball” type of positive impact over time, so that, once the impact of both has ended after a few years, it is the second one that has had the greatest positive impact.

Moreover, it is also possible that a strategy that produces great benefits in the short term has negative ramifications in the long term, and may even have a negative overall net balance. For this reason, it is important to try to estimate the potential long-term effects, even if this is difficult to estimate with precision.

1.6. Treating symptoms or causes?

Impact over time is a factor that strongly suggests we prioritize strategies that attack the causes of a problem, and not just its symptoms. For example, if we compare a strategy that helps many animals if they happen to be caught in a fire with another that prevents fires from occurring, it is probably the second that has the better impact over time.

The predominance of a speciesist mentality is one of the causes of the extremely negative situation in which animals find themselves (whether those who live in the wild or those exploited by humans)⁶, since it leads people to attach little importance to situations that harm animals. That is why educational efforts to combat speciesism have a great potential for positive impact over time, since they directly attack one of the main causes of the problems that affect animals.

Of course, these are not the only kinds of efforts that would attack the causes. For example, a program investigating which types of elements present in an ecosystem tend to favor a greater or smaller number of births in animal species whose lives are predominantly negative would directly attack another of the main causes of animal suffering⁷.

1.7. How many people already care about the problem?

The amount of benefit we can produce, curiously, depends on what other people with the power to help are already doing and will probably do, since this determines how neglected each problem is (that is why this parameter is called neglectedness).

All else being equal, the fewer people care about a serious situation, the stronger the reasons for us to support the cause that deals with it. All else being equal because, of course, this factor has to be weighed against other important factors, such as how serious the situation each cause deals with is. And, again, these factors may point in the same direction in certain circumstances (the worst problems being the most neglected), but not in others.

Below we will see two reasons why ascertaining the degree of neglectedness is important for efficiency in helping.

1.7.1. Inefficient distribution of efforts

The first reason is that the degree of neglectedness may reveal that there is an inefficient distribution of efforts. To illustrate this point, consider the following example.

Imagine that problem A is the most serious of all, that problem B is the second most serious, and that both are equally tractable. For this reason, we decide to focus on problem A. However, imagine also that another group of people, reasoning in the same way, also decided to focus on problem A. Imagine that problem A was then solved. However, if we had known that other people would already try to solve it, we could have focused on problem B, which would have increased the chances of both problems being solved (something that did not happen because both groups of people invested in the same problem).

Thus, the more people already involved in trying to solve a given problem, the greater the likelihood that the problem will be minimized (or even solved) without our help.

1.7.2. Diminishing marginal returns

The second reason is that, when a cause is still quite neglected, each additional person makes more of a difference than in causes that already have more supporters. That is, causes (and the specific problems within causes) experience what are called diminishing marginal returns. This concept will be explained in more detail below.

When a cause is very neglected, there are many easy and cheap opportunities to make significant progress. These opportunities are like the fruit hanging from the lowest branches of a tree, which are easier to pick. The first individuals working on a certain cause or problem can identify and exploit these opportunities, and will thus have a great impact. However, as more people come to work on the cause, the cheapest and most impactful opportunities tend to be taken first. Increasingly, what remains are tasks that are harder, more expensive, slower, or that have less impact per unit of effort. Thus, the marginal impact of each new person working on a cause tends to decrease over time (that is, there are diminishing marginal returns).

Let us look at an example. Imagine that a disease is killing a human population but that, fortunately, a vaccine is available. The first volunteers who promote vaccination have an enormous impact, because they can vaccinate the highest-risk groups and contain outbreaks quickly. As more people join the campaign, the groups that are easiest to reach and at highest risk have already been vaccinated, and the new volunteers then need to work with people in places that are harder to reach, who are more resistant to vaccination, and so on. This requires more time, money, and effort for each additional vaccination, which means that the impact of each new volunteer is smaller than that of the first ones. Now compare this case with a problem that is still very neglected, on which almost no one has worked, such as the vaccination of wild animals. In this case, the chances that you will be among the first people to explore the most effective solutions are much greater.

1.7.3. Which problems are the most neglected?

An important point to note about neglectedness is that most people may not even know that the most neglected problems (precisely those on which each of us would have the greatest impact) exist, since the problems reported in the media and addressed by social movements are the ones that many more people are already focusing on.

We will talk about the most neglected problems in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3.

1.8. Conclusion

Above we have seen several criteria that can help us choose which causes and problems to prioritize and which solutions are best.

The difficulties in weighing the different criteria should not make us think that it is impossible to reach any satisfactory conclusion about these problems. For example, as we will see in the next chapter, the animal cause seems to meet the priority criteria very well, as do several problems related to the future. There is greater uncertainty about the best strategies, but even in that regard we can also constantly reassess them⁸.

As you have surely noticed, the criteria we have seen do not provide a ready-made, simple answer. This is to be expected, since these questions are quite difficult. However, these criteria offer guidance for assessing these questions with the seriousness the subject deserves.