[Xero]

"Children are not an all or nothing proposal."

I'm not sure I understand this mentality. Why force a life into this existence if you don't do everything in your power to make it as accommodating as you can? Modern life in it of itself will be working against it.

[sametmax]

You just give a greater value to this life than somebody else does. And you give yourself a greater responsability about. Those are all moral choices, there is no good answer. Only the way you see the world.

[ionised]

Your attitude is a very recent one in human history.

The person you are responding to is espousing an atittude that is far older and more widespread throughout the world.

[Chris2048]

Should we strive for an equal society? As such, shouldn't all children be born with equally (or minimally) committed parents?

[siphor]

What? This comment reads to me that you want a homogenous society... The people who do great things take big risks. Shit happens. This is a thread for startups, where many people eschew the "safe" corporate jobs in order to create or do something that many people don't think are possible.

You're reading about an accident, and then assuming the amount of risk involved without knowing anything about the sport. Accidents happen all the time, in all sorts of ways. It's very possible to do something like this and have a large safety margin, as has been shown by his 24yr history of doing it. Someone who is this experienced at what they do, in a dangerous seeming sport, will be very well aware of possible mistakes, and how to mitigate them. I personally think teaching your child to be "safe" and not take "risks" is kind of stupid. I'd much rather teach my child to learn how to push the limits intelligently, and see what in this world is possible.

[Chris2048]

> you want a homogenous society

Can you tell me what that means?

> people who do great things take big risks

Parents? With their lives? Can you describe such a scenario?

> This is a thread for startups

Is the risk involved in startups of the same impact to their children as their deaths?

> then assuming the amount of risk involved

Am I? Is this considered a safe pastime then?

> and have a large safety margin, as has been shown by his 24yr history of doing it

Now who's assuming? 24 years of not telling anyone he's going on a dive?

> I personally think teaching your child to be "safe" and not take "risks" is kind of stupid

You're playing semantics. mortal/life-threatening risk/safety is clearly different from other forms of usages of the same word(s).

You absolutely should teach your children to avoid those kinds of risks, or at least, in the context of having dependants.

[siphor]

> Should we strive for an equal society? As such, shouldn't all children be born with equally (or minimally) committed parents?

I wasn't sure what you meant by "equal society," everyones different, the only way to get "equal" where all children have "equally" committed parents, would be quite homogenous.

The main point I think I'll reiterate, is that yes, you are assuming the amount of risk this person took. The amount of risk involved goes down the more you know about something. This person definitely knows more than you about the sport of cave diving, and can better judge the amount of risk involved. I think that's all I'm trying to say. You can do something that seems dangerous to outsiders, quite safely.

And I also think that lessons from one sport, or activity, apply to other areas of life.

[Chris2048]

I'm still not sure, but yes - a child shouldn't be exposed to unusual, or high levels of risk due to the "attitude of the parent".

This person knows more than I do about diving, but not necessarily about risk; A doctor who studies lung cancer might know more about the risks of smoking than a life-long smoker.