There's a spectrum of risk here that IMO we don't like to acknowledge. It's uncomfortable to say that accepting a certain quantity of seriously injured or even killed children actually does come with benefits to those who aren't hurt. But I think we shouldn't shy away from this calculus, we should rather be clear-eyed about the fact that we have chosen to minimise risk, and have accepted the trade-off of reduced independence, joy, and adventure.
I think we've moved in this direction organically. We have much fewer children much later in life than we used to, we do not accept child mortality, and every child is a much bigger investment (education and economic dependency into the mid twenties or later), so every life literally becomes more valuable, so we naturally hedge more and more against any risk to this life. The more we move into a high-education and EQ driven economy, the more investment each child demands, and the further this cycle perpetuates.
Personally, I would not make this tradeoff, but I understand how hard it is to make this argument when faced with grieving parents who have suffered a huge loss, both emotionally and materially.
I think we've moved in this direction organically. We have much fewer children much later in life than we used to, we do not accept child mortality, and every child is a much bigger investment (education and economic dependency into the mid twenties or later), so every life literally becomes more valuable, so we naturally hedge more and more against any risk to this life. The more we move into a high-education and EQ driven economy, the more investment each child demands, and the further this cycle perpetuates.
Personally, I would not make this tradeoff, but I understand how hard it is to make this argument when faced with grieving parents who have suffered a huge loss, both emotionally and materially.