>> I honestly can't understand how any society with scientific awareness of its surroundings can nevertheless commit to building so much expensive civilization

>> 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'.