3 ms·

I lived in SoCal and worked in SFO for some decades and witnessed both the Northridge and the Oakland quakes first-hand, narrowly avoiding personal injury or ev

I lived in SoCal and worked in SFO for some decades and witnessed both the Northridge and the Oakland quakes first-hand, narrowly avoiding personal injury or even death in both cases (big things falling around me), and the conclusion I made after these events, which I eventually acted on, was simply put thus: GTFO! I really didn't want to be there when the Big One happened, nor even some of the minor small ones, so I've moved to Central Europe where such things have a lower chance of happening .. in a way, I have a perverse desire to see The Big One happen from so far away, but I always dread the mind-game of trying to conceive what SoCal will be like, afterwards. I truly dread the idea, and I honestly can't understand how any society with scientific awareness of its surroundings can nevertheless commit to building so much expensive civilization and infrastructure in a known catastrophe zone. I guess its just a matter of momentum, but I sure wish the citizenry of the PNW and SoCal would prepare themselves for this event a bit better. It seems so defeatist to continue to build things in that area, knowing it could fall into the sea in a moment, and there is nothing we could do about it. California should just be a massive nature park stripped of all human involvement, just in case, but of course this is never going to happen, so if The Big One does happen in my lifetime, its just going to be a massive tragedy no matter what we humans could have done about it with all our science and stuff. Argh!

ghaff 10y ago
I guess if I lived through two significant earthquakes in that way, I'd probably have had a thought along the lines of "This is a sign to move" as well. >It seems so defeatist to continue to build things in that area Fatalistic is probably the better word. I can buy an old missile depot in the Midwest and stock it up with supplies and prepare myself for the zombie apocalypse or whatever. Or I can live somewhere I enjoy, and has good opportunities, etc. and not worry too much about events I don't have a lot of control over or a lot of insight into their probabilities. Of course, there are situations between those two extremes and it's not unreasonable IMO to include "the Big One might hit" into a calculus for evaluating moving to or staying on the West coast. (As with living in areas with a lot of potential for floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.) Actually turns out Las Vegas, for example, scores pretty well on non-disaster metrics. One reason a lot of datacenters are there--in addition to evaporative cooling.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  Its not like I didn't have a great time living in California, because I truly did, and in many ways its a delightful civilization in which to participate. Perhaps its just a cultural comfort I seek, in which the citizenry at least seem aware and prepared for total and utter disaster, any minute now, and live accordingly. I guess its exhausting to live that way, so if it happens, it happens; maybe that liberal and - lets just get out and say it, "Zen-"like mindset truly is just a part of the California love ..
  - ghaff 10y ago
    Honestly, though, I'm not sure anyplace in the US is different. I lived in New Orleans and I was well aware of the hurricane scenarios as well as some of the failure scenarios of Corps of Engineers structures up the Mississippi. (Had a good friend who worked for the Corps.) So it seems a pretty typical attitude in the US. Perhaps it's different elsewhere. Abstractly understand the worst case scenarios, plan to mitigate them (or not), but go on living life.
w0utert 10y ago
>> I honestly can't understand how any society with scientific awareness of its surroundings can nevertheless commit to building so much expensive civilization and infrastructure in a known catastrophe zone. The same thing can be said about many other places on earth where people decided to settle and build a society. Near volcano's, below sea level, between rivers that could flood the whole area, in arid regions that barely support agriculture, very high up in the mountains where it's cold and dangerous, in regions infested by parasites and disease-carrying insects, etc. I think you should not try to approach these things from a rational/calculating perspective, that's not how societies work. Why societies cluster at certain locations is determined by so many different factors that building a highly advanced, densily populated, and expensive to (re-) build society close to a faultline should IMO be seen as a 'historical accident that, in the case of SF, had a high probability of happening'.
ac29 10y ago
People often assume the 1989 earthquake was particularly dangerous. While it caused quite a bit of property damage (about $6 billion according to Wikipedia), there were only 63 deaths and 3,757 injuries. The previous major earthquake in the region was in 1906, and there haven't been any since 1989. Given that, it is extremely unlikely to die or be injured by earthquakes in the Bay Area. On a list of most likely ways to die, it would be near the bottom. edit: I should mention I lived in the Bay Area in 1989 and experienced it first hand. I still live here and of all the reasons I might move, earthquakes isnt even on the list.

ghaff 10y ago

I guess if I lived through two significant earthquakes in that way, I'd probably have had a thought along the lines of "This is a sign to move" as well. >It seems so defeatist to continue to build things in that area Fatalistic is probably the better word. I can buy an old missile depot in the Midwest and stock it up with supplies and prepare myself for the zombie apocalypse or whatever. Or I can live somewhere I enjoy, and has good opportunities, etc. and not worry too much about events I don't have a lot of control over or a lot of insight into their probabilities. Of course, there are situations between those two extremes and it's not unreasonable IMO to include "the Big One might hit" into a calculus for evaluating moving to or staying on the West coast. (As with living in areas with a lot of potential for floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes.) Actually turns out Las Vegas, for example, scores pretty well on non-disaster metrics. One reason a lot of datacenters are there--in addition to evaporative cooling.

fit2rule 10y ago
Its not like I didn't have a great time living in California, because I truly did, and in many ways its a delightful civilization in which to participate. Perhaps its just a cultural comfort I seek, in which the citizenry at least seem aware and prepared for total and utter disaster, any minute now, and live accordingly. I guess its exhausting to live that way, so if it happens, it happens; maybe that liberal and - lets just get out and say it, "Zen-"like mindset truly is just a part of the California love ..
- ghaff 10y ago
  Honestly, though, I'm not sure anyplace in the US is different. I lived in New Orleans and I was well aware of the hurricane scenarios as well as some of the failure scenarios of Corps of Engineers structures up the Mississippi. (Had a good friend who worked for the Corps.) So it seems a pretty typical attitude in the US. Perhaps it's different elsewhere. Abstractly understand the worst case scenarios, plan to mitigate them (or not), but go on living life.

w0utert 10y ago

>> I honestly can't understand how any society with scientific awareness of its surroundings can nevertheless commit to building so much expensive civilization and infrastructure in a known catastrophe zone. The same thing can be said about many other places on earth where people decided to settle and build a society. Near volcano's, below sea level, between rivers that could flood the whole area, in arid regions that barely support agriculture, very high up in the mountains where it's cold and dangerous, in regions infested by parasites and disease-carrying insects, etc. I think you should not try to approach these things from a rational/calculating perspective, that's not how societies work. Why societies cluster at certain locations is determined by so many different factors that building a highly advanced, densily populated, and expensive to (re-) build society close to a faultline should IMO be seen as a 'historical accident that, in the case of SF, had a high probability of happening'.

ac29 10y ago

People often assume the 1989 earthquake was particularly dangerous. While it caused quite a bit of property damage (about $6 billion according to Wikipedia), there were only 63 deaths and 3,757 injuries. The previous major earthquake in the region was in 1906, and there haven't been any since 1989. Given that, it is extremely unlikely to die or be injured by earthquakes in the Bay Area. On a list of most likely ways to die, it would be near the bottom. edit: I should mention I lived in the Bay Area in 1989 and experienced it first hand. I still live here and of all the reasons I might move, earthquakes isnt even on the list.