Who according to the author is worthy of admiration?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Tony wrote that we should “save our admiration for people whose lives are about serving a greater good, and our greatest admiration for those who are willing to make sacrifices to do so.”
I disagree on three fronts. First, financial sacrifice and serving the greater good are often not correlated. My role models for serving the greater good are not the people who walk around in sack cloth and ashes but industrialists like Gustavus Swift, who developed the refrigerated boxcar, which dramatically reduced life-threatening food-borne illness; the drug companies that continue to innovate new forms of protease inhibitors that keep my HIV-positive friends alive; and my friend who’s risking his savings to start an ice cream business, which will employ a dozen people.
Second, this elevation of a particular type of sacrifice, financial sacrifice, keeps us from solving more of the most urgent social problems of our time. It reinforces the notion that we should not allow people who want to make money to do it in the humanitarian sector. It denies our humanitarian organisations some of the best talent in the world.
Human beings act out of self-interest. Including when they make sacrifices. When society restricts the types of self-interest that people may indulge when it comes to humanitarian causes to conspicuous (or even inconspicuous) acts of selflessness, we prohibit large numbers of very talented people from making a difference in the world, simply because their flavour of self-interest might be money. We laud the martyr who is paid poverty wages — and who lets everyone know it — without knowing anything about his talent or productivity. He gets his psychological needs met by being praised as one who sacrifices on behalf of others. Fine. Yet we refuse the talents of someone who may be far more productive because his self-interest is simply in dollars instead of sainthood.