That's the balancing part, no? Nothing is risk-free, and the implied dichotomy is misleading. You can be a wreckless fool without the dangerous hobbies.

Also implied is that we can even agree what "reasonable parenting" means.

> Nothing is risk-free, and the implied dichotomy is misleading

Ironic, since by using the term "risk free", you are the one implying a dichotomy: either something has risk or it doesn't.

It's technically true but that's unhelpful, since risk is not a binary value: it's a spectrum. Certain hobbies and jobs are demonstrably more risky than others.

> Nothing is risk-free

You can determine a threshold though?

> can even agree what "reasonable parenting" means.

So much as we can agree what reasonable <anything> means - which we can, as there are all sorts of laws regulating various aspects of life. We can, to some degree, legislate "reasonable driving", or "reasonable flying".

The threshold is whatever one feels is responsible. We are the only ones that know ourselves. I know when I feel like I'm pushing my boundaries. I really don't know what other people's boundaries are, and that's why I defer to their personal judgement.

I don't think there is a standard here unless we want to draw the line at the painfully obvious. But the danger doesn't lie in the painfully obvious, it lies in the gray area where we all differ.

And "reasonable" only ever seems obvious in retrospect.

But that's a principle that comes from personal choice. When you have kids, there's a third party involved.

> I don't think there is a standard here

Has such a proposal been investigated?

> And "reasonable" only ever seems obvious in retrospect.

I disagree.

Give me what a reasonable parent does in a car. Do they turn around and talk to their kids? Do they pass a bottle back there for the baby? Do they change the radio station?

After than, I have questions about reasonable parenting when hiking in the foothills. How much water should I be required to bring? I could go on and on regarding the gray areas of life. You have the answers?!? Please share.

> You have the answers?!? Please share.

Did I claim to? Anyone that dares suggests standards of safety should exist, must be omniscient first?

And yes,I think those things should be regulated too. To extent that they practically can, they are - you can be cautioned for not driving with due care and attention.

You originally asked me if "identity investment in something life-risking really compatible with reasonable parenting?"

I've tried to show that's not a fair question since we don't agree what is reasonable parenting or what is risk. But yes, it is compatible because it is the only way.

Consider this, until recently, conception through birth was quite likely to kill you. It didn't get much riskier than having kids, yet people still chose to have them. Over and over. So yes, risk is what life is made of.

We don't agree, but what does that matter? Nothing stops coming up with a proper standard - such a thing already exists to some extent.

The example of childbirth has more factors to it - other than it being required to further the human race, there is a biological imperative to do it. Plus, in the past, women didn't always have as much choice.

A standard for what? You keep saying standard. You expect a "risk standard" to emerge? An "activity standard"? Hobby Standards? I honestly am not following you. Risk is as diverse as anything.

Di insurance companies insure different activities? There must be internal standards for determining risk - they don't just roll a dice.

So yes, activity.

> You can determine a threshold though?

If we were at all responsible at evaluating risk to leaving children, there is no way we'd travel in cars as a family unit.

> But is identity investment in something life-risking really compatible with reasonable parenting?

Every human activity is life-risking (as is inactivity.)

In what sense? In that some, possibly trivial, risk is involved?