> This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. I am not taking it seriously because I feel you

> This gets to the core of the 'not a zero sum game' and 'how do we get people to take it seriously' argument. I am not taking it seriously because I feel you are presenting platitudes and deepities instead of serious arguments. "Not a zero sum game" is often used interchangeably with "society doesn't need to care about costs", and I feel that is what you are doing here. And I strongly value infrastructure and generally support things that are considered "wealth redistribution schemes". Convince me spending on earthquake-proofing will have ANY value and you can begin changing my mind. Convince me spending earthquake-proofing is better than tornado resilience and you will have completely changed my mind. Tornadoes actually kill people every year in the regions we are talking and those funds are already tight. I simply think there are better ways to save lives and money than earthquake-proofing in regions that get earthquakes approximately as often Phoenix gets snow.