We do the opposite. The political class and the contractor class regularly flout safety norms and build where they shouldn't. They make the money from the safety of being out of range.
When the political class are questioned they utter inanities like people should be grateful that God Ganga maia waters have come to bless their lands and homes.
It is a racket. This will continue till we start electing people who respect the scientific methods and their conclusions.
Okay, but isn't it likely that the outcome of those scientific investigations will be that the Himalayan foothills should not be inhabited at all, except maybe a couple of places? What I mean is: Sure, politicians and contractors could do better, but I believe the primary reason for villages and bridges in those valleys is that people want them there. Standard of living is exceptionally low and this is just one of many hazards.
> Okay, but isn't it likely that the outcome of those scientific investigations will be that the Himalayan foothills should not be inhabited at all, except maybe a couple of places
Yes and that is broadly the safe option. One can build on geological stable high grounds. They are rather and more difficult to build on. We know what happens when we don't.
> Sure, politicians and contractors could do better
It's not mistake of the "oops a typo" variety.
They are knowingly making a freakton of money by endangering the people who ought to know better. I agree sometimes the poor might not have viable alternatives that they can fund with their own bank balance but it seems this is where the governments should step in to fund alternatives. But why do that when there is easy money to be made.
While I usually prefer to attribute incompetence rather than malice, it's hard to deny corruption is a likely factor here too. But the "freakton of money" aspect IMO needs nuance. I wager that the wealth of those cronies doesn't come close to my western living standards, so who am I to judge?
The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future is not priced in (make insurance mandatory?) and because of acts of corruption that actively promote/incentivize development in hazardous areas by rewriting zoning, repricing permits, rewriting saner policies.
Some people's job is building new houses to sell them. Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas. Usually there is no point working unless it's for money so take your guess.
BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.
> Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas
No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position.
My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks.
In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position.
Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.
And most of this "well obviously nobody should build anywhere where there will be serious destruction every couple generations" type sentiment ultimately just to funnels wealth and power to whoever took that good land previously.
If there is serious distruction every couple of generations it happens either to you or to your children. So, do you really want to build our buy there? If it happened to your parents there is no you.
But these people who want to make a buck building garbage somewhere it won't last are largely counterbalanced by the equal and opposite people who seek to financially benefit at society's expense by harnessing the screeching of the useful idiots to get sprinkler systems mandated in garden sheds and mail order carports require engineered plans.
They're basically two sides of the same "slimy people who'll lie for a buck" coin.
Maybe true in the first world. In 3rd world countries some times the information about the hazards is not properly appreciated.
For example, there were recent floods, is a location were previous governments had not developed. Now the current government rather than taking accountability are claiming that affected houses should be grateful that they have been touched by the river god.
Difficult to believe, but some people fall for the propaganda.
“the people”, those instinct-driven will-less victims of the “Epstein class”, right?
Why do they have to be “moved”? They are perfectly capable of moving themselves as I can attest to seeing them flooding into my country by the thousands. “The people” make their own choices.
When the political class are questioned they utter inanities like people should be grateful that God Ganga maia waters have come to bless their lands and homes.
It is a racket. This will continue till we start electing people who respect the scientific methods and their conclusions.