Comment by magicalist
4 years ago
And as usual with these nice simple narratives, there's no evidence this actually happened (and compelling evidence that it didn't):
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmjrdg/is_th...
4 years ago
And as usual with these nice simple narratives, there's no evidence this actually happened (and compelling evidence that it didn't):
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmjrdg/is_th...
Something very similar did happen though, during the "Great Hanoi Rat Massacre" [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanoi_Rat_Massacre#Hirin...
Reminds me of that people who are 3D printing firearms and parts to sell off at gun buyback programs [1][2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/11/new-york-gun... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/akee4e/someone-made-dollar30...
Reading your link, the bounty was real actual thing that happened, it's that the farming of snakes isn't something that was proven to be happening. The link actually says that deaths increased due to an unintended consequence of the bounty system, just for different reasons than is usually mentioned.
The post says deaths in _houses_ increased due to snake habitat destruction that drove them there. It suggests that could be because of snake death awareness raised by the bounty system, but that feels a step too removed to call it an "unintended consequence".
It's not due to a perverse incentive regardless, though, which is what the original anecdote is supposed to exemplify.
One imagines that the goal was to decrease deaths of people regardless of whether they're inside or outside of houses.
That link is the neatest answer I have read in ages - this whole story could easily become a hour long tv show