Those who have followed us since 2015 know that at some point we had published a prioritized version of our CRUCIAL LIST. We are going to publish it again, in a better shape. We'll also gradually publish the way we built that prioritization, in order to continuously improve it. Would you like to help?
Prioritized list of crucial problems
The algorithm we developed for prioritization is made of a sequence of estimation and prioritization phases (16 at the moment, with 8 estimation phases and 8 prioritization phases). Today we'd like to refine the first step and we'd love to hear your opinion about it.
Prioritized list of crucial problems
The algorithm we developed for prioritization is made of a sequence of estimation and prioritization phases (16 at the moment, with 8 estimation phases and 8 prioritization phases). Today we'd like to refine the first step and we'd love to hear your opinion about it.
Step 1: Impact on humans
The first step in the prioritization process is to estimate what could be the worst impact (either now or in the future) that each crucial problem could have on humans. We currently have defined 13 possible levels of impact, from the lowest (1) to the highest (13).
Which option of ordering do you think it is more appropriate, the Option 1 or the Option 2?
Option 1
For this option an impact of comfort is always less important than an impact on health or death, independently from the number of people affected. So a loss of comfort for the vast majority of people is less important than a health impact for a small number of people.
1: No considerable impact
2: Low impact (comfort) for a small number of people
3: Low impact (comfort) for large groups/number of people or communities
4: Low impact (comfort) for whole populations
5: Low impact (comfort) for a vast majority of people
6: Medium impact (health) for a small number of people
7: High impact (death) for a small number of people
8: Medium impact (health) for large groups/number of people or communities
9: High impact (death) for large groups/number of people or communities
10: Medium impact (health) for whole populations
11: High impact (death) for whole populations
12: Medium impact (health) for a vast majority of people
13: High impact (death) for a vast majority of people
Option 2
For this option an impact is always calculated according to the number of affected people. In this case a loss of comfort for the vast majority of people is considered less important than the death of a small number of people.
1: No considerable impact
2: Low impact (comfort) for a small number of people
3: Medium impact (health) for a small number of people
4: High impact (death) for a small number of people
5: Low impact (comfort) for large groups/number of people or communities
6: Medium impact (health) for large groups/number of people or communities
7: High impact (death) for large groups/number of people or communities
8: Low impact (comfort) for whole populations
9: Medium impact (health) for whole populations
10: High impact (death) for whole populations
11: Low impact (comfort) for a vast majority of people
12: Medium impact (health) for a vast majority of people
13: High impact (death) for a vast majority of people
Which option do you think it is the most appropriate? We know it is a profound question that could provoke a philosophical debate, but if you had to choose, what your decision would look like? Any other options? Please let us know.
Which option of ordering do you think it is more appropriate, the Option 1 or the Option 2?
Option 1
For this option an impact of comfort is always less important than an impact on health or death, independently from the number of people affected. So a loss of comfort for the vast majority of people is less important than a health impact for a small number of people.
1: No considerable impact
2: Low impact (comfort) for a small number of people
3: Low impact (comfort) for large groups/number of people or communities
4: Low impact (comfort) for whole populations
5: Low impact (comfort) for a vast majority of people
6: Medium impact (health) for a small number of people
7: High impact (death) for a small number of people
8: Medium impact (health) for large groups/number of people or communities
9: High impact (death) for large groups/number of people or communities
10: Medium impact (health) for whole populations
11: High impact (death) for whole populations
12: Medium impact (health) for a vast majority of people
13: High impact (death) for a vast majority of people
Option 2
For this option an impact is always calculated according to the number of affected people. In this case a loss of comfort for the vast majority of people is considered less important than the death of a small number of people.
1: No considerable impact
2: Low impact (comfort) for a small number of people
3: Medium impact (health) for a small number of people
4: High impact (death) for a small number of people
5: Low impact (comfort) for large groups/number of people or communities
6: Medium impact (health) for large groups/number of people or communities
7: High impact (death) for large groups/number of people or communities
8: Low impact (comfort) for whole populations
9: Medium impact (health) for whole populations
10: High impact (death) for whole populations
11: Low impact (comfort) for a vast majority of people
12: Medium impact (health) for a vast majority of people
13: High impact (death) for a vast majority of people
Which option do you think it is the most appropriate? We know it is a profound question that could provoke a philosophical debate, but if you had to choose, what your decision would look like? Any other options? Please let us know.
RSS Feed