Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 320 posts

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#121

Post by Gargoyle »

wfunction wrote: post #86
aasarava wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks." There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days o…

I think the complaint was that the parent had a young child, not merely a child. Without actually taking a stance on the topic, it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents, i.e. it's not just your life you're messing around with. When they stop being your dependents, do whatever you want, it's just your life now…

My brother did a fair amount of mountain climbing in his 20s, but stopped around the time he had kids. He specifically said "I don't want to go again until they're old enough to remember me." Done properly, the risks are limited, but they do exist no matter how careful you are.

Now he's hit about that right time and I don't know if he even still has the desire. Age changes a lot of that. Still, it does seem like he made the responsible choice to me.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#122

Post by Chris2048 »

betenoire wrote: post #114
Chris2048 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> become an integral part of who you are You can say that about anything. Smoking, alcohol, racism, leftism ( jk :-D ) But is identity investment in something life-risking really compatible with reasonable parenting? that's the question.

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

You can determine a threshold though?

> can even agree what "reasonable parenting" means.

So much as we can agree what reasonable 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".

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#123

Post by wfunction »

pdonis wrote: post #116
wfunction wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> it seems quite a reasonable argument that, while you have a young child, you shouldn't actively go around risking your life -- they're your dependents > That's an argument for having life insurance; it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. Yeah, because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing.

> because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing. That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father…

> That's not what I said.

Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks"?

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#124

Post by Baeocystin »

salad77 wrote: post #52
manarth wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You leave your house, walking towards the railway station to catch a train to work. You reach a traffic-crossing near your home, and see the crossing-light flashing orange. You dash across as you're in a rush, and as you dash out, a car hits you. It wasn't entirely your fault, but you did dash out without looking, and did dash out whilst the lights were flashing orange. Do you never take that crossing (or maybe even…

When I was SCUBA training, my instructor made a point of telling everyone in the class : "There are OLD divers and there are BOLD divers, but there are very few OLD, BOLD divers." Every single time I had an issue under water, it was when I was trying something BOLD and it brought back the instructors words. Martyn Farr's book [mentioned in other comments] is littered with examples of BOLD divers but when you look up…

Those exact same words (with rider replacing diver) were the first ones uttered to me by my Motorcycle Safety Instructor when I first took the course back in the the 90's. He was an ex-CHP officer with ~1 million miles under his belt, and had a lot of stories, gruesome and glorious.

It was a great class, and he was a wonderful teacher. Scared the foolhardy, sobered the romantics, and conveyed a career's worth of lessons on riding safe. I've been accident-free since starting in '94, and I genuinely do think a large part of it was his initial, excellent instruction.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#125

Post by betenoire »

Chris2048 wrote: post #122
betenoire wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 You can determine a threshold though? > can even agree what "reasonable parenting" means. So much as we can agree what reasonable 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.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#126

Post by PhasmaFelis »

seanc wrote: post #35
j9461701 wrote: post #33

I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say: "I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix" I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either gro…

I am a father and I agree 100% IMO maaaaybe you could be married with no kids and do this ethically. But with kids? You're rolling the dice on a very important promise. I do struggle with what that line of thinking means for soldiers though.

At least in theory, soldiers risk their lives to make all their country's children safer. I think that's a worthwhile trade, in aggregate.

It depends on whether your country likes to get involved in wars that don't actually protect their populace, of course.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#127

Post by PhasmaFelis »

Chris2048 wrote: post #71
balls187 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does this mean? As someone who's never done cave diving, the perception of risk is going to be higher than the actual risk. 1 time in 24 years is pretty low.

Maybe, unless he got sloppier as time went on. There are a few flags pointed out in these threads - like not telling anyone that he dived..

On the other hand, in that case he's likely to be "scared straight" now and much more careful, at least for a good while.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#128

Post by Chris2048 »

pdonis wrote: post #113
Chris2048 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a soldier, it's their duty They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". > his tolerance for risk wrt cave diving is different than what you and I perceive What does this mean?

> They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". But if it's not ok to become a soldier if you have kids, that severely limits who can be a soldier. (For example, many soldiers get married and start families during their careers as soldiers. Should they instantly get discharged if that happens? Taken off all possibly dangero…

> that severely limits who can be a soldier

But that's an economic problem, isn't it? Maybe if children stopped working, we couldn't make enough matches? But unless we recognise the morally undesirable, why would we care to change anything?

You can recognise something as morally undesirable, yet for some other reason unavoidable. There are many things that fall into that category.

It's also a slippery slope - if something is needed does that justify all means in getting it? And to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers? It's one thing to defend its borders, but is every military action of necessity - as opposed to national will?

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#129

Post by Chris2048 »

betenoire wrote: post #125
Chris2048 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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 gr…

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.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#130

Post by justinjlynn »

j9461701 wrote: post #33

I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say: "I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix" I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either gro…

Asking people to debate what is likely to be a quasi-religious opinion is asking for a flame war. The problem with parenting and the implications of the responsibility thereof is that everyone who has to parent has to have an opinion and has to believe theirs is correct. There really isn't the societal barrier we have regarding discussions about religion and politics keeping most of us, who otherwise wouldn't contribute because of the radioactivity, silent. Of course, this can only result in a thread which spirals into arrogant "you don't have children, so your opinion is null and void" territory and other such nonsense. It's very unlikely to be a thread of any illustrative value other than the value of illustrating how closed minded and dismissive people can be. I'd rather not deal with that on HN.
Post reply on HN