Individually we often lack hard numbers for comparing activities, and if we had them, might misapply them. After all, just by mortality figures, it seems like worrying about electrocution by lightning is silly, but our bathrooms ought to be terrifying. And yet...needlessly hanging out in an open field during a thunderstorm where you're the tallest object around still sounds stupid. We spend far more time in the bathroom (at least my wife thinks I do) than electrical storms.
Beyond the risk there's the perceived cost of mitigation and reward of the activity. Let's compare 2 hypotheticals. Say for sake of argument you conclude my BMI being probably upper 30's combined with my age (nearly 53) puts me on par with someone who does a lot of deep diving, violates NDLs and ignores some moderate deco. obligations. Let's say some insurance company actuary runs some calculations and says our odds of dying diving on a given dive trip are equal.
Well, getting and keeping me slimmed down to a BMI in the 20's is highly impractical and would require a major life overhaul and ongoing struggle. It ties into a number of other issues - what like to eat, how much, the role of food in my life, activity level, what it would take to make me more active in a sustained way, etc...
But for the other guy to dive within his NDLs or tech. diving standards the 2 weeks per year he dives would be faster, cheaper and far more practical.
For example some consider that diving on air is dangerous below 30 meters given the gas density and the CO2 retention.
Context matters. From our fondly remembered member Dr. Bill Bushing, I recall he noticed narcosis affected him more strongly after an extended period without deep diving. I generally don't like to dive very deep (over 100-feet) on my first dive day, particularly if I'm solo diving and no one else is around. IIRC, GUE is known for preferring a 100-feet depth floor for diving air, but if you look at the purpose driving the formation of their agency, with a focus on risk mitigation, fatality reduction and the 'challenges' of some of their team dives, prioritizing mental acuity may make sense. As opposed to a group dive at the Blue Hole of Belize looking at the stalactites down deep a few minutes.
It is not only a matter of experience and training. It is a matter of perception rooted in ourselves from our life experience, personal fears, comfort under water, personality, scientific knowledge…
The mistake that some commentators make is transposing their personal vision of the risk to everybody else. Mistaking absolute and undeniable risk if that exists with perception of what absolute truth is… This does not mean that we should disregard the risks. It’s just a bit more complicated than that.
Yes. Where does 'reckless and idiotic' give way to 'Hey, man, you do you?' One thing to keep in mind is that on ScubaBoard, we're advising each other, not dictating to each other from a position of authority. Some of our members are fairly new to diving, or to a given destination or activity, and may not yet be well-informed to make informed decisions.
Over the years, we've also had some members die. And we've read about deaths in the Accidents & Incidents threads. None of us want to live in a bubble.
In a round about way, I'm saying we won't all agree on where to draw the line across a range of topics (e.g.: buddy system obligations, how much rescue content should be in the OW course, solo diving, deep air). A little grace extended to people who disagree with you can go a long way, and the debates we have might teach someone (if only a bystander not trying to 'win') something.