Greatest-Suffering Impact Filter
Prioritize the problem where your effort can reduce the most suffering
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 90%
This filter turns moral concern into a repeatable allocation decision. Start with the serious problems available to you, compare the amount of suffering each creates, and then ask where your particular effort could produce the greatest measurable reduction. The method does not treat a current cause as permanent: new evidence can reorder the list, as it did when Cabane moved from animal testing to trafficking, genocide, and factory farming. Its output is one priority for concentrated effort rather than a collection of equally weighted concerns. The mechanism combines scale with tractability, preventing familiarity, fashion, or emotional immediacy from becoming the sole basis for choosing where to work.
Origin
Cabane describes repeatedly redirecting her pro bono work as she encountered larger sources of suffering, ultimately prioritizing factory farming because of its scale and tractability.
Core principles
- 01Compare causes by total preventable suffering, not personal familiarity
- 02Favor problems where your effort can create measurable change
- 03Reassess priorities when evidence reveals a larger source of suffering
How to run it
- 1
Build the cause set
List the serious problems that you could plausibly help address. Include current work rather than protecting it from comparison.
Pro tip Use comparable units such as affected beings, severity, and duration.
Watch out Do not confuse the most visible problem with the largest one.
- 2
Compare suffering at scale
Estimate the number affected and the depth and duration of harm for each cause. Use evidence rather than intuition wherever possible.
Pro tip Record uncertainty ranges instead of hiding weak data.
Watch out Large headline numbers can mislead if the underlying harm is minor or poorly evidenced.
- 3
Test tractability
Ask where your skills, network, capital, or influence could produce a measurable reduction. Discount causes where your contribution has no credible path to impact.
Pro tip Look for leverage through business, policy, research, or communication.
Watch out Scale alone is insufficient when no practical intervention exists.
- 4
Concentrate and revisit
Commit the available effort to the strongest scale-and-tractability combination. Re-run the comparison when material new evidence appears.
Pro tip Set a review date or evidence trigger before committing.
Watch out Do not switch causes merely because a newer one feels more emotionally vivid.
In the wild
An advocate compares several animal-welfare campaigns. Factory farming affects vastly more sentient beings than the alternatives, while alternative-protein businesses provide a plausible route to reducing demand for conventional production. The advocate therefore concentrates on mapping and supporting that industry rather than dividing time evenly.
→ Effort moves toward the cause with the strongest combination of scale and actionable leverage.
Common mistakes
Ranking by emotional proximity
A personally vivid problem can feel largest even when its total impact is smaller. Compare evidence across causes before committing.
Ignoring tractability
Selecting the biggest problem without a credible intervention can strand effort. Pair scale with a realistic path to change.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for founders, advocates, and donors deciding which major problem deserves sustained attention.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when reliable evidence about scale or tractability is unavailable.
From the transcript
“what will reduce the most suffering for the greatest number of sentient beings”
“looking for the greatest amount of suffering where it could have the greatest impact”
From the episode
Olivia Fox Cabane: The Future Of Food [Spotlight on Alternative Protein]
Olivia Fox Cabane