4 ms·
It's not egotistical, but you could call it selfish. He wants to cure himself. Steve Jobs was on a similar quest to cure cancer - because he didn't want to die.
by wilfra 13y ago
It's not egotistical, but you could call it selfish. He wants to cure himself. Steve Jobs was on a similar quest to cure cancer - because he didn't want to die. Larry wants to speak normally again.
Behind many non-profits and causes there was a similar personal catalyst. People trying to get rid of the three strikes law or drunk driving were many times similarly motivated into action by a personal tragedy.
- ipince 13y agoYou don't know what he wants or doesn't want. It _could_ be selfish, but it could very well not be. Maybe he just had the chance to learn a lot more about this particular disease and so it's more natural for him to invest there. It sure would feel more natural to me to contribute to research on a disease that I have experienced first-hand than to some other random one, even if the random one is more "important." No selfishness there. I would just identify better with the victims and have a more real urge to help them.
- abeh 13y agoI see it more as people trying to solve problems they come across. If you contribute to the ones you are close to, and others do the same, things improve.
- liotier 13y agoScratching your own itch is the classic motivation for free software - it works for medicine too !
- deelowe 13y agoMost philanthropy is selfish in nature. Who cares what his motivations are? Why would anyone want to criticize philanthropy? It's not like the founders of Google have a poor stance on charity or anything: http://www.google.org/ http://www.google.org/ Give the man a break. It's good that it's not life threatening at this point as there are certainly much worse CEOs in the world.