> Surely that can't be true either or we'd be spending all our time saving people.

Advocates of effective altruism argue that the best of us do this, and that if we all did this, it wouldn't take all of our time.

It would because there are people we don't know how to save yet. The only way to save a cancer victim is to spend all of our time on cancer research. I think what most people mean is that they are willing to go to first order efforts to save people where immediately possible. But that is really just a form of triage and cost saving measure. Practicality still rules in the end.

I don't think I understand your comment. There are people we don't know how to save, but there are also people we do know how to save. The Against Malaria Foundation, for instance, claims that every ~$3k donated results in the prevention of the death of a child under the age of 5 (https://www.givewell.org/charities/amf#Cost_per_death_averte...).

I'm arguing against the idea that people truly believe "every life is worth saving" even by effective altruism advocates. Effective altruism is only arguing how we should ration the resources we've already allocated to helping people. It doesn't address the fact there is a quota at all.

For people who deal with this professionally the quota is defined monetarily. For the average person its an unconscious decision. But in all cases the amount of resources allocated to helping is not defined directly by the demand.

> Effective altruism is only arguing how we should ration the resources we've already allocated to helping people.

I'm not sure how to determine what "effective altruism" is arguing, but prominent EA advocates like Will MacAskill and Peter Singer are absolutely concerned with increasing the amount of money allocated to helping people. The conclusion of Singer's most famous argument is that we have a moral imperative to donate most of our money to saving the most lives. Even personally, both live modestly and donate most of their income.