Using your comment as a jumping off point for the discussion of this aspect particularly - as long as the construction is done with fairly environmentally frien

Using your comment as a jumping off point for the discussion of this aspect particularly - as long as the construction is done with fairly environmentally friendly materials, I don’t find that especially problematic. Maybe because I am typing this from a San Francisco building that appears to be mostly made of wood and nails, whose foundations do not seem to have been updated in almost a century, and seems ready to collapse/burst in flames at any moment’s notice, and for which I am paying the same price as the nice new modern building down the street that does seem in better shape in case of an earthquake or fire. I am also reminded of the house where a coworker just moved in with his entire family, of which most of the foundations are burnt due to a fire in the 90s. The house still stands up - for now - and the landlord has been renting it ever since because it would never sell in this shape. So in geographic regions with high risk for seismic activity, tornadoes, tsunamis, floods, etc, it seems like building houses up to the latest code with cheap materials every 30 years is better than having very expensive tinderboxes around for a century or so.