2 ms·
So is living on the sea bed. It's irrationally expensive and inconvenient, which is why we don't do it. Living in areas in constant danger of flooding and/or b
by TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
So is living on the sea bed. It's irrationally expensive and inconvenient, which is why we don't do it.
Living in areas in constant danger of flooding and/or burning and/or storm wind damage and/or drought seems like quite an eccentrically inconvenient lifestyle flex.
Unless you like disaster movies.
- achierius 2y agoWhere are you suggesting we live then? Most all of the US is at "constant" risk for at least one kind of disaster in your list or another.
- colechristensen 2y agoFar enough inland that the rising sea levels will keep you 50 miles away from the coast for the next century anywhere east of a north-south line that runs through the middle of Kansas. These are places where it rains so you have local water supply and you don’t have a yearly wildfire season and the risk of hurricane destruction is far lower. Also just not in the floodplain of a local river. This is like half of the country.
- JKCalhoun 2y agoI can tell you home insurance is climbing in the Midwest from storms (roofs are apparently expensive to replace/service). I pay more in Nebraska than I did in California (although to be fair, I did not buy earthquake insurance in CA).