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.
Also, from the article: "My children don't like it much but they don't tell me not to do it"
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.
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).
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%"
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Today I learned this.
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!
> 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Whether you "buy" the simple causal graph that he used as an example is a minor point.
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.
> 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.