08-21-2018, 02:44 PM
OK, let's simplify the comparison then. Island vs. Island. The Florida Keys. Every year, about a dozen hurricanes wander in toward them before (usually) veering off at the last second. They are only a few feet above sea level in the past hurricanes have completely obliterated the population of entire islands. Most choose not to evacuate when hurricanes approach because
1) usually nothing dangerous actually happens
2) each evacuation blows about a week of vacation; nobody can spare months of vacation time each year, and
3) evacuation puts you on a 120 mile road to the mainland that is stalled with bumper-to-bumper traffic and often takes you straight into the storm. (Welcome to Miami. Please evacuate Miami.)
Thousands have been killed by these storms. No one has been killed by lava flows.
As for "useful economic activity", both locations are tourism and retiree driven, and in addition Puna farms quite a bit. The Keys do not farm at all (real estate is much too expensive)... they are purely bedroom communities, and thus "non-essential".
So, if the nanny-state somehow gets to decide where we are allowed to live, living in the Florida Keys should be banned, not Puna.
1) usually nothing dangerous actually happens
2) each evacuation blows about a week of vacation; nobody can spare months of vacation time each year, and
3) evacuation puts you on a 120 mile road to the mainland that is stalled with bumper-to-bumper traffic and often takes you straight into the storm. (Welcome to Miami. Please evacuate Miami.)
Thousands have been killed by these storms. No one has been killed by lava flows.
As for "useful economic activity", both locations are tourism and retiree driven, and in addition Puna farms quite a bit. The Keys do not farm at all (real estate is much too expensive)... they are purely bedroom communities, and thus "non-essential".
So, if the nanny-state somehow gets to decide where we are allowed to live, living in the Florida Keys should be banned, not Puna.