There is a lot of land that does not have such extreme dangers. Of course, some countries have it worse than others. Japan would be one such. Good or bad, the population has been on the decline there for unrelated reasons.
For earthquakes this is what my country looks like
This is at a very broad resolution. One can refine to make this more local. Earthquakes are just one type of hazard. One has to take other hazards into account.
That's not quite it. Its about policies that take into account the cost of future events and balance it against the ease of building. The future needs to be priced in, in today's prices.
Regulations (for example, you cannot build unless and insurer is willing to insure your property against known local hazards) and enforcing the regulations can make that happen. Often we move in the other direction by adopting policies that encourages mispricing.
You’re the one making it all or nothing. give some concrete examples to prove me wrong, or stop bs’ing.
don’t forget major earthquakes (most of California and the entire Pacific Rim, to name some well known areas), floods, serious droughts, tornados, hurricanes/cyclones, fires, subsidence (into the ocean or sinkholes), volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and lahars.
It’s about frequency and preparation, but it’s never perfectly safe. No building code handles everything, it’s impossible. Hazards are somewhat mitigated or ignored, not entirely dealt with.
Not sure what you mean by give concrete examples, when my position is normative.
I am not sure where you are getting "all or nothing" in my comments. If you are interested, you can read my other comments on this story to get perhaps a fuller picture of my position.
I understand my comments have worked you up, but I am not sure why. If you have lost people in this incident, I am genuinely sorry for your loss and can understand emotional outbursts. If you have dear ones engaged in practices that I am disapproving of, well, then in that case too I can understand your displeasure.
If you thought that I am claiming that adhering to my position will ensure that future death tolls would magically become zero then that's uncharitable reading.
My position is quite simple, price in the hazards based on scientific hazard assessment. Enforce policies that encourages correct pricing, rather than part take in corrupt practices that encourages mispricing of the kind that benefits the political class and builder class nexus that operate from the safety of being out of range.
This can be done through regulations. For example, we have mandatory third party accident insurance for vehicles. That's an example of a regulation that encourages pricing in the hazards.
Hazard zoning is not all or nothing of the type (a) permitted and (b) not permitted. It is about assigning areas to different grades of quantized hazards. See my other comment for example of such zoning for Earthquake hazard.
With hazard priced in, the markets would mostly take care of where to build new homes and what kinds to build.
In Himalayan states of India we have the opposite going on. Politicians, in concert with the enforcement bodies that are peopled by their flunkies, encourage illegal constructions in known hazardous areas, deregulates zoning so that dangerous areas are cheaper to own property on in exchange of kickbacks from the builders.
> don’t forget major earthquakes ...
I am not forgetting that for sure but not sure what your point is. If it's -- look here are other dangerously built up areas in the US -- then yes I agree.
There was corruption involved in managing the levies that were supposed to protect New Orleans too.
> or stop bs’ing
And yes there is no need to be rude. It does not make your point stronger.
On the otherhand I live here, with large part of my childhood in an earthquake hazard zone, the highest in fact. If you have lived here and know your high school geography you would be well equipped to guess where.
I am not sure I hear any constructive suggestions from you other than lulz. Unfortunately that's not going to make a difference.
In any case, since this has devolved into personal insults. I recuse myself from a wrestling bout in the mud, sorry about denying the pleasure.
Zoning is not an all or nothing.
There is a lot of land that does not have such extreme dangers. Of course, some countries have it worse than others. Japan would be one such. Good or bad, the population has been on the decline there for unrelated reasons.
For earthquakes this is what my country looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_zones_of_India
This is at a very broad resolution. One can refine to make this more local. Earthquakes are just one type of hazard. One has to take other hazards into account.