The recent untimely death of Steve Irwin, "The Crocodile Hunter", brought up an interesting thought. Is it okay that he died while doing something he was totally passionate about even though it left his wife and child without a husband and father, respectively?
There are quality arguments from each point of view. My first thought when I heard about it was that it was about time: when you put yourself in a position to risk death enough times, statistically, your chances of surviving those chances dwindles with each occassion.
My mind is just inundated with a number of questions:
What he did affected a lot of people. Was that impact enough to put his life and family at risk? Will the number of people he touched due to his passion outweigh the major impact to his family? Will the fact that he followed his passion (even unto death) have a positive or negative on his family? Would it have been possible for him to scale back on the dangerous activities he pursued in order to minimize the risk to himself and his family? Or would scaling back on his activities have reduced his impact on the world at large? Which impact is more important? If his passion isn't inherently immoral, is it acceptable to pursue? Is it immoral to pursue a passion to the degree that it puts his life at stake in the face of leaving his family alone? To compare, is it okay for a soldier to risk his life for his country even though he has a family that counts on him? Is it any different for Steve Irwin to pursue his lifestyle even though he has a family that counts on him? Is the honor of serving your country more important than the educational and entertainment value Irwin brought to the world?
Personally, I don't have an issue with him pursuing his passion. God gives you certain abilities that you should maximize to honor Him and better the world. And he did, quite successfully, as a single guy with no familial attachments. He continued this lifestyle even after getting married and committing himself to another person. And he continued this lifestyle even after he and his wife had children. My thinking is that you can justify those risks as a single individual who has no one depending on you financially, emotionally, spiritually, etc. And I think you can justify those risks once you're married, considering your wife is on the same page with you. I have a harder time justifying that risk once you have children. Each child deserves a chance at growing up with the love, support and guidance of both parents. I suppose if both the husband and wife agree that the risk is worthwhile, it is up to them to make the ultimate judgement about what is right for their family. But, to me, it just doesn't seem right to continue a high-risk lifestyle once there's the chance that someone could lose out so drastically.
It seems to me that Steve Irwin had plenty of opportunity to impact the world-at-large with his nearly insane passion for the animal kingdom. Could he not have scaled back his risk (and, admittedly, the impact of his broadcasts) for the overall sake of his wife and children? He could have still followed his passion, be it at a lesser degree, and still given his family a significant chance of keeping their patriarch. According to Wikipedia:
"Irwin was as enthusiastic about his family as he was about his work. He once described his daughter Bindi as 'the reason he was put on the Earth'.His wife once said, 'The only thing that could ever keep him away from the animals he loves are the people he loves even more.'"
I'm just not convinced that the Irwin children will be just as well off knowing their dad died while doing something he was passionate about rather than having him around to share his slightly less dangerous experiences, wisdom and knowledge with his them. It all just seems like a failed experiment in risk management. An experiment in which the Irwin family unnecessarily loses.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Great rumination. I would argue the Irwin family won rather than lost. I'd rather have a dad who knew himself well, followed his dreams, and lived his life to the fullest for eight years of my life than a dad who was a complacent square peg in a miserable round hole for fifty years of my life. And that's regardless of whether his career was the type that made the world a better place or not (if it did, it would just be icing on the cake).
But, Jeremy, it seems that living life to the fullest would mean doing all you can to be there for your kids, to remain healthy and active and mentally sharp, emotionally stable, spiritually at peace. Maybe following your dreams and pursuing your passion would help those achievements along, but I still think Steve Irwin put his work with animals above his own safety, which in essence means he prioritized his work over his kids. I think there is a point in between the two extremes - where a parent can find happiness/fulfillment/peace and still maintain their availablity and role as a parent.
I might suggest looking at it from a couple of different viewpoints. One, if you're a kid under 10-years old, I just don't think the signficance of your dad pursuing his passions is going to mean jack squat; you just want your dad around, whether he's wrestling alligators or schlepping burgers. Two, I think it's a different story if the kid is older (out of the house, even) and can understand what it means to follow your passion. It doesn't make it a whole lot easier, but somewhat understandable nonetheless. For young kids, though, I just don't think you can replace "Real Dad" with "Idealistic Thoughts of Passion-Seeking Dad".
Yes,I think that if a parent is following their dreams and is passionate about what they do, and is doing a job they fit really well into, then the parent is going to be that much more energized, peaceful, and joyful. I know my own dad was stressed out a lot when I was a kid and would come home and grump around the house and not have much to say - I can't help but think that if he had been in a job he felt really great about doing, and loved his daily work, he would have probably been a little more fun and a little more in touch with what us kids were doing or thinking or feeling. Kids don't appreciate a parent feeling great about life and themselves until they are easily in high school, I'd bet - at least not cognitively.
One more thought on this topic: I think it's the dad's responsibility to be available/worthy of looking up to/as low-stress as possible no matter whether he's following his passion or not. Everyone deserves a fully engaged set of parents regardless of the circumstances. There are plenty of instances of people coming from seemingly crummy home lives, but the parent(s) made the effort make sure the kids got the best they could out of life. Did Steve Irwin do that? Financially? Absolutely. Idealistically? I suppose. But the lack of his presence, passion-seeking or not, is not a mark in his or his family's favor, in my opinion.
Post a Comment