08-21-2018, 07:14 AM
quote:With such a large population you are almost as likely to move them into the path of an ill-defined hazard (such as hurricanes or an earthquake that might hit anywhere along a fault line running hundreds of miles), than to move them from its path. Furthermore, in addition to people and housing, there would probably be a huge installed base of economic infrastructure.
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
Of course, if it is a large population covering a large area, making a sustained considerable economic contribution or the hazard is large-scale and difficult to assess
The larger the population, infrastructure, and business presence, the greater the loss and emergency government assistance required after a disaster. If your point is to minimize government intervention, a “large population covering a large area” would require the greatest government assistance. By that standard, Puna is a bargain compared to New Orleans and Houston, so why should we move out if they don’t?
As far as a case by case assessment, that would be subjectively determined by those who make the assessment. Puna has too often received the short end of the stick, so I don’t have much faith in the outcome of a case by case basis.
“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” - President Donald J. Trump, 7/25/18
Obviously, each possible locale needs an independent assessment based on all of these factors, as well as, potentially, others, but those are not "Puna" and I don't want to drift off-topic or locale. I am, after all, a slow learner, but not completely brain-dead.
Speaking Truth to Lies / Facts to Ignorance