[JimSEA]

Bangladesh, in a great river delta for the most part, and NO have basically the same problems. The land isn't suited for permanent settlements and those who live there are going to be repeatedly be the victims of disaster. The difference is that we can build the infrastructure to resist all but the most extreme disaster. The question is, "Is it worth it in view of the fact that eventually nature will overwhelm whatever we put up at our current levels of technology and economy?"

[Chickensoup]

"Is it worth it in view of the fact that eventually nature will overwhelm whatever we put up at our current levels of technology and economy?"

As a citizen, I certainly dont want to pay for this again.

[clee1]

The answer to your question is "no".

[Spiff]

Bangladesh, in a great river delta for the most part, and NO have basically the same problems. The land isn't suited for permanent settlements and those who live there are going to be repeatedly be the victims of disaster. The difference is that we can build the infrastructure to resist all but the most extreme disaster. The question is, "Is it worth it in view of the fact that eventually nature will overwhelm whatever we put up at our current levels of technology and economy?"

I think the decision to rebuild or relocate will be made by the insurance companies who will refuse in the future insure anyone or anything in the New Orleans disaster zone. If you can't get insurance, you're likely to build where you can get it. If the employers can't insure themselves, they'll have to build elsewhere. If the employers are elsewhere, the employees will move too. That is, of course, if the Federal Government doesn't come along and just underwrite everything with our tax dollars.