Im posting a variation of Peter Singer's drowning child thought experiment in the hope of having a conversation around the moral landscape of EA.

In the updated version of the thought experiment:

You pass a large pond on your way to work . On hot days children sometimes play in the pond which is only about knee deep. The weather’s cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you are surprised to see 1 million children splashing about in the pond. 

As you get closer you see that these are very young children, just toddlers who are flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond. As you look around you see a few other bystanders entering the pond to save children however most people seem to notice the children but continue on their way to work. 

You then notice that as some children are being rescued from the pond more children are in fact still entering  the pond and beginning to drown. 

To complicate matters; on the other side of the path you see work is beginning on building a pond 10 times larger. Which would pose a far greater risk to children drowning in the future (representing long term existential risk). 

Furthermore this is the route you take to work every day and you will now be faced with this scenario every morning. 

You are now presented with enormous moral pressure;  

Should you disregard your obligations at work, enter the pond and from this day forth devote yourself entirely to rescuing children? 

Should you sacrifice 10% of your work day each day by stopping at the pond for 45 Minutes in the morning and rescuing children? 

Should you instead devote that time to increasing the chance that the larger pond is either not built or if built at least has some safety measures in place? 

Or should you take a different route to work in the morning? 

The original thought experiment as far as I understand was designed to explain why geographical distance should not impact moral obligation.  I suppose this is more concerned with the enormous & unending moral implications of EA. 

For me when I think of the drowning child thought experiment in this way, I feel that for the person walking to work every morning it seems reasonable that they would quickly become extremely aggrieved to exist in such a world. 

But I wonder if its possible to not consider this persons situation to be a burden but to instead be an opportunity to save lives daily? 

Is it possible for them to be grateful to have the opportunity to devote themselves to something profoundly meaningful and good? 

Either way Im very new here and have very little knowledge of philosophy so please excuse my ignorance and poor writing but I would love to have some more in depth conversations around the moral impact of EA .