At some point, you've gotta come to grips with the fact that you like getting bit by snakes.
Edit: Sorry, I really did mean that to be funny. I don't care what his motivations are for letting himself get bitten so many times. Whatever the root cause, it looks like we might benefit tremendously from it, and for that, I'm sincerely grateful to him.
But get bit by one snake, you're unlucky. Get bit by 5 snakes, it's an occupational hazard. Get bit by 100 snakes, I think there's something else going on.
"James Harrison, a prolific Australian blood donor famed for having saved the lives of more than two million babies, has died at age 88."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/03/health/james-harrison-blood-d...
1) they benefit from it somehow, even if it just flatters their sense of justice
2) they did it unquestioningly because someone told them to, it didn't occur to them that they even had a choice
3) they did something reflexively and may not even have realise they did anything.
So I find criticising people for "they did it because there was something in it for them" such a lacklustre criticism, because that applies to almost everything. It's what was in it for them and how much they gave up for it that makes it laudable or contemptible.
Besides, why does it matter anyway? A good thing happened regardless of the motivation.
Agreed! However.
> there are only three motivations for people to do things
Cooperative behavior arises on its own via evolution in otherwise fairly primitive species. The benefit to the individual in such cases is extremely indirect but the game theory on a collective level is clear enough.
Which is to say, you could just genuinely want to help others. I suppose one could argue that doing so benefits you emotionally but I feel that would be getting a bit reductionist.
I'm not saying this man was or wasn't purely altruistic, I have no way of knowing that. I'm just playing Devil's advocate to point out that altruism can be a fascinatingly deceptive gray zone, even if it does a net good.
"Mr. Friede’s first snake encounter, a harmless bite by a garter snake at age 5, started a lifelong fascination. “If I only knew back then what was going to happen,” he recalled, laughing uproariously.
But he didn’t begin dabbling with snakes in earnest until he was married with children and working in construction."
"Dabbling with snakes" is just poetry
I mean, I think people can be that altruistic, but the people who really make a difference are those whose interests align with an altruistic outcome.
Relevant clip https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6huF9KE1Q
Ok so this guy did some crazy self-experiments with venoms from a range of snakes over an extended period. And more institutional scientists are finding useful antibodies in his blood. But ... why have the institutional scientists not previously done the equivalent process with animals. I.e. if you inject a horse with increasing concentrations of venom from a range of snakes, can you produce a universal antivenom?
arbuge•9mo ago