I probably should have just left the example at: How should we think about the tradeoff between saving non-human species from extinction and saving human lives? One’s answer may depend on the species in question. One might value megafauna, tree frogs or insect species more or less than each other. I didn’t mean to suggest that all species are equally valuable, though I certainly see where you’re coming from with that interpretation of what I wrote.

One kind of answer to this sort of question is to say that humanitarian giving and environmental giving (not primarily motivated by benefits for people) are incommensurable, that it isn’t really possible to give a clear rational basis for weighing one against the other. That’s how I read your statement about being “primarily interested in humanitarian giving”. And maybe incommensurability is the right answer and it’s just a pure value judgment with no “correct” answer. Still, it’s worth noting that’s a kind of answer that Givewell rejects in other contexts. E.g. you forcefully (and I think effectively) reject starting points like “I’m passionate about education, therefore I’m going to try to find the best education charity to give to.”

“Current GiveWell staff are primarily interested in humanitarian giving”

For example, let’s say for argument’s sake it takes $1 million to save a species from extinction and the same amount of money would save a thousand human lives out of a population of 7 billion. How would you respond to someone who argues that while human lives are more valuable, they’re (we’re) not 7 million times more valuable (as the above numbers might crudely suggest although that’s obviously far from a necessary conclusion to put it mildly)?

I’d (imperfectly) analogize the conservation vs. humanitarian decision to the local vs. global humanitarian one. You rightly challenge people and organizations that decide up front with minimal reflection they want to give locally. You argue that because you can get such a greater bang for the buck in terms of human welfare overseas, that must overwhelm other considerations. (By other considerations I mean e.g. the feeling of a greater moral responsibility to those closer to home and/or a greater confidence that one understands local problems and what will truly help.)

Bottom line: I think it would helpful to analyze and flesh out the moral intuition that leads you to prioritize humanitarian interventions.

I’m not pretending I have any answers here, by the way. In my own charitable giving, I’ve moved towards more of an emphasis on global health intervention while still giving significantly to local charities and relatively little to conservation. But I do think these are important questions.