[rdtsc]

Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.

> The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family.

That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In other I can freely decide not to strap my kid in a car seat but that doesn't mean I won't get a ticket or my child won't be seriously injured or worse in a car accident.

[pragone]

> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.

In all seriousness, I do have a hard time guessing which one most children would pick. I can see reasonable arguments made on either side. Personally, I think it would be far more inspiring to have a father who died pursuing his passion, then one who gave it up to stay at home.

[dkersten]

My father died when I was 8 and I know a number of others who lost a parent as a child and, while I know this is anecdotal, every single one would rather have their parent. Every single one would rather have a dead-beat (but not abusive, I imagine that would change the equation) dad over no dad.

Also, from the article: "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it"

[phil21]

> Every single one would rather have a dead-beat (but not abusive, I imagine that would change the equation) dad over no dad.

This is demonstrably untrue in my social network. Just in my own friend group I know a handful of folks who would much rather their father simply didn't exist, rather than having this effectively random person they now owe some supposed family obligation to. Basically they got all the responsibilities of having a father, and none of the benefit.

[dkersten]

> This is demonstrably untrue in my social network.

I don't know what problems your network face, so I'm not judging, but in my own experience, people who haven't lost a parent sometimes think that maybe they'd be better off. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where this is actually true and I can see why having someone who you're meant to care about but who is essentially a stranger isn't a particularly nice thing, but at the same time, having grown up without a father, I and those I know who lost a parent, would rather have someone than not have someone. Maybe its a "you don't know what you've got until it's gone" kind of thing (or maybe those people in your network really do have shitty family).

[jonahx]

If you just asked them, in all their ignorance, you're undoubtedly right. If you asked the children who chose the adventurous dad after he had died pursuing his passion, nearly 100% would trade the world to reverse that choice.

[Someone]

The 'choice' isn't between "dull and alive" and "adventurous and dead", but between "dull, 99.9% chance of living to an old age" and "adventurous, 95% chance of living to an old age" (actual percentages for illustration only)

I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"

[mseebach]

The top-GP didn't say "adventurous", they said chasing "adrenaline fix". You can be adventurous without exposing yourself to fatal danger (and you can be an adrenaline fix chaser and be a really, really dull person to be around).

> I think many kids, especially those with an adventurous mom/dad, would think "my mom/dad is strong and knows what he is doing, so (s)he won't be in that 5%"

Not this guy's:

> "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it," he says.

[jonahx]

Most adults don't really understand how likely 5% is. You're ascribing a level of mathematical sophistication and risk assessment to children that they simply don't possess -- not even close.

[curun1r]

Your hypothetical survey method has a literal survivorship bias (and a statistical one...you're not asking the children of parents that took risks and didn't die). Looking at risk the way you're looking at it is a recipe for wasting your life. The better way to think of it is like the way that poker players look at their decision making...don't be outcome oriented. There's a logical, statistical way to do this and it's called the micromort. 1 micromort equates to a 1 in 1 million chance of death. Each activity that has been engaged in widely enough to be measured will have a micromort value and, while the math is a bit more complicated, they mostly just add up. Just because he engages in an exotic activity that carries some risk, doesn't mean he's being reckless.

Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless? No doubt you can find countless children who lost a parent in an auto accident who would tell you they would have wanted their father to have a shorter commute and still be with them. But since driving is a familiar activity, no one questions the risk that someone is incurring with that kind of decision. And yet that 2-hours to work and 2-hours back drive is, based on the stats that I've been able to find, around 1 micromort. Over the course of a year, that adds up to around 200 micromorts, or roughly 1/5000 chance of dying. I can't find the data on cave diving, which is no doubt higher than recreational diving, but SCUBA has a value of 5 micromorts per dive, so it's roughly equivalent to driving 1250 miles on a highway. Someone doing 40 dives per year is taking on roughly the same risk as that 50,000 mi/year driver.

Humans are really bad about estimating risk. We do it by equating risk to the ease in which we can imagine something happening. It's why so many people are afraid of statistically safe activities like air travel while underestimating much more serious dangers. We need a framework, like micromorts, for thinking about risk logically to better determine what amount of risk to take on and then "spend" that risk budget in whatever way helps us get the most out of life. Parents can say, "I'd like a 90% chance of being alive when my kids turn 10, a 75% chance of being alive when they turn 18 and a 50% chance of being alive when they turn 30." Once you've decided on a risk threshold, you can work backwards to determine how many micromorts you're allowed to take on each year.

Otherwise, you're just living your life based on irrational fears.

[jamra]

This reads like the most sophistic argument to the point he was trying to make. The diver was a cave diver, not a regular scuba diver. It's very different and notoriously risky. He almost died in the same cave previously. His point was well taken.

It doesn't mean that being risk averse is the right way to live. It's a fair point and a good thing to consider when you are a parent. That's all.

[BearGoesChirp]

>He almost died in the same cave previously.

While I get the emotional impact of this, it really shouldn't be an argument either way once you begin using some framework to judge decisions.

Think of it this way, if I nearly died in a car wreck on the way to work, would it be fine for me to never get in a car again? I almost died doing that once!

It would make more sense to determine the risk. That he already nearly died doesn't really change the risk profile. Cave diving is extremely risky. That should be the important factor. Having nearly died should not.

[zapperdapper]

I agree. In USA you are looking at 34,000 deaths a year on the roads. I'm a diver (not caves though) but my closest shaves have been while commuting! Cycling to work is probably more dangerous than cave diving.

[jonahx]

> Put another way, would you say a father that chooses to drive a 2 hour commute (each way) per day is being reckless?

This question appears rhetorical (with an intended answer of "no"), but I absolutely think such a risk should be considered, whether or not you're a parent. The higher-order bits here are probably the time you're wasting with 100% probability, perhaps the increased life satisfaction of a great job, etc, but the p% additional chance you die in a car crash, as you said, is non-trivial, and even though I know very people incorporate such thinking into their decision making, I think they should.

[nicky0]

> micromort

Today I learned this.

[chii]

That's an inherently biased question, because they've already suffered the loss, and so would've chosen not to suffer it given the chance.

The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!

[jonahx]

I'm sorry, but this is a kind of clever sophistry that is absurd in the face of lived experience...

> The same thing (but reverse) with asking children whose fathers didn't go on an adventure and see if they would've preferred a more adventurous father!

Yes, each child only knows one half of the story, as it were. But the knowledge imbalance is not symmetrical. The child whose father has died understands boredom and dissatisfaction in other ways... perhaps his mother is boring, or sometimes nags him, and even his adventurous (now dead) father surely disappointed him sometimes, and so on.

The child who has not experienced death really has no idea what that suffering is like. It's just utterly callow to think his opinion has equal weight.

[henrikm85]

While, as a father, I instinctively hate your answer, it is a very good point that helped me see beyond my previous horizon, thanks for that!

[throwawaycanada]

Personally I would feel very selfish if I asked my dad to give up his passion in life just so I know there would be a slightly greater chance of him being safe. Especially if two years later he died of cancer or something. We all die.

[laumars]

Depends on the kid, their age and their relationship with their father. I don't think there is any right generalized answer.

With my kids I know they would rather have me around, but they are young so I'm already "superman" to them. Who knows how our relationship will change as they grow older.

[irrational]

As they go through their teenage years you will get stupider and lamer in their eyes. Then sometime after they move out they will realize that you are actually quite intelligent and will, at some point, apologize for being an ass and tell you that they are proud of you. At least that was my experience with my parents and has been my experience with my kids so far.

[andyjohnson0]

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.” - Mark Twain

[test1235]

Again, that is a generalization. Being a father doesn't automatically make a person intelligent or good.

[DanBC]

Whenever we ask children what they want from their families they always say they want to spend more time with their parents.

[qb45]

> always

Except for those who hate their guts. Or those who distrust them. Or those who are bored by their lifestyle, possibly relevant to this topic.

[andrewfong]

> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick.

Not that it necessarily changes the argument, but the "choice" is probabilistic. That is, it isn't father at home vs. dead, but "probably boring dad but most likely alive" vs. "maybe famous dad but some chance of death".

[aesh2Xa1]

That doesn't sound right. How many cave-going dads are there that you could make the claim? And do a majority of kids believe their fathers are boring? I just don't buy it. And is taking a risk like this the best way to be "not boring?" Definitely don't buy it.

You can have fun and be adventurous without taking heavy risks. It's fair to say that someone who continues to put himself at harm is foolish in one capacity or another.

[harperlee]

I think the grandfather post is mainly saying that not thinking this through a lense of risk and reward, that can end up giving kids some good outcome is an error (and for sure having a happy father IS better than a depressive one, so if the cave diving risk is sufficiently low, then it makes sense to do it). This line of thought is also probably similar to what that guy thought (to think it is worth the risk to live like that). In that case, you have a slope of risk that starts reasonably and ends up unacceptable, but where you can't easily pinpoint where to draw the line.

Whether you "buy" the simple causal graph that he used as an example is a minor point.

[throwawaycanada]

I don't think it is possible in the literal sense to have adventure without risk.

[irrational]

Maybe it depends on your definition of adventure or risk. I went to an escape room recently for the first time. I considered that to be an adventure for me. But I never felt like I was taking a risk.

[ajuc]

The risk may be: waste of time, inconvenience, being stuck in an awkward social situation. Not always death.

I'd say taking a sabatical, walking the country asking strangers personal or "deep" questions is an adventure and a risky one, yet you don't risk your life more than by just commuting to work.

I guess risks depend on the country, but are comparable.

[Mz]

You are assuming he is a good father. Capacity to reproduce in no way whatsoever guarantees that one is any good with kids.