There is a reason that the average life expectancy used to be a lot shorter than it is now.

The issue of whether a couple with a 1 & 3 year old should be taking that trip in a small boat is a separate issue. If keeping your little children safe is a prime issue -- then I'm not sure that the critisism hasn't basis. I think that it's not simply que sera, que sera...they come where we take them on our adventures...etc.

Both a 1 and 3 year old can be handful in "normal" situations. (I'm the oldest of 9 children. Had a couple myself. etc.) It's a fantasy to say that the action is not without significant risks. People survive all kinds of challenges. What is an acceptable or prudent risk has "dimensions" -- even if it may not be a bright line between callous disregard for the saftety of a child (or in this case, children).

I'm not casting stones, but the critisism could reasonably be framed and not be fivolous. If something happens to a young child in that situation, it would be natural to question the wisdom in hindsite. What is an acceptable or prudent risk has "dimensions" -- even if it may not be a bright line between callous disregard for the saftety of a child (or in this case, children). There is a difference between intrusive meddling and seeking to protect an innocent child from reckless behavior. Such a discussion can have purpose. Doing it an obnoxious way, is still obnoxious -- but the concept of criticism is not, in of itself, out-of-bounds.

I believe that a 3 year old child is not improved by being contained on a small boat in the ocean for weeks on end. It's a rationalization to say that it's not that bad (that means it's a question of HOW bad it is). Does the imposition of such burden have some purpose other than the gratification of the parents whim or compunction? Those are questions that I ask in a general sense -- not aimed at these two parents. The question is not crazy, intrusive, or without purpose.

Take that, you old (or younger) hippies, libertarians, etc. ;^)))))