3 ms·

> I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. Along similar lines of thinking, humans should not be living in areas that

> I'm of the opinion that humans should not be living in areas that burn regularly. Along similar lines of thinking, humans should not be living in areas that flood regularly, or that have earthquakes regularly, or that have hurricanes regularly, or that have tornadoes regularly, or that have insufficient water, or that have excessive heat or cold regularly, or that have high rates of animal-transmitted disease. This doesn't leave many places for people to live.

rcpt 6y ago
It actually leaves quite a lot of places to live. Yes an asteroid could hit anywhere but the notion that suburban sprawl out into every corner of the wilderness is justified by that is ludicrous.
- rubidium 6y ago
  It would be a really fun map though, to determine where is "safest" based on an individuals risk profile.
  - rcpt 6y ago
    Insurance rates map https://howmuch.net/articles/homeowners-insurance-rates-2020 https://howmuch.net/articles/homeowners-insurance-rates-2020 But there’s got to be a higher resolution one out there.
  - throwaway189262 6y ago
    These exist, somewhere. Data centers are very interested in disaster risk since they don't have many other constraints
throwaway189262 6y ago
It does. The west coast is fire and earthquake prone. The east, hurricanes. There's a giant swath of land in "flyover country", the Midwest, that doesn't have any particular disaster risk. But people like living near the oceans, mountains, and where weather is nice. That should be okay, but the government shouldn't be throwing money at them. Let them know the area is dangerous, and if they want to live there, they're on their own. I get miffed when we bail these people out with federal funds for disaster relief. They should be required to have private insurance, with insurance free to set rates based on risk. If it's too expensive to get insured, don't live there

rcpt 6y ago

It actually leaves quite a lot of places to live. Yes an asteroid could hit anywhere but the notion that suburban sprawl out into every corner of the wilderness is justified by that is ludicrous.

rubidium 6y ago
It would be a really fun map though, to determine where is "safest" based on an individuals risk profile.
- rcpt 6y ago
  Insurance rates map https://howmuch.net/articles/homeowners-insurance-rates-2020 https://howmuch.net/articles/homeowners-insurance-rates-2020 But there’s got to be a higher resolution one out there.
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  These exist, somewhere. Data centers are very interested in disaster risk since they don't have many other constraints

throwaway189262 6y ago

It does. The west coast is fire and earthquake prone. The east, hurricanes. There's a giant swath of land in "flyover country", the Midwest, that doesn't have any particular disaster risk. But people like living near the oceans, mountains, and where weather is nice. That should be okay, but the government shouldn't be throwing money at them. Let them know the area is dangerous, and if they want to live there, they're on their own. I get miffed when we bail these people out with federal funds for disaster relief. They should be required to have private insurance, with insurance free to set rates based on risk. If it's too expensive to get insured, don't live there