Some humans do, at least. I've read about there being stones in lakes or rivers that basically say "btw if you see this stone, you're as fucked as we were in the year 300AD" or something.
And in Japan there's those old stone marker monuments telling people not to build below them because of tsunamis or floods or something to that effect.
But I mean I guess when it's as desirable property as the SF Bay Area, the fact that you lose the building on it every hundred years or so is a small price to pay?
It seems everyone in this thread is forgetting humans only live 100 years.
If an event happens every 250 years on average - thats 10 generations of humans.
There are stories told by old Indigenous peoples in Canada and the Western USA about the Cascadia Fault which will wreck the PNW west of Interstate 5, estimated to happen every 500 years, last happened in 1700s. But they are just that - vague stories. Who is listening to them?
If 10 generations of a family can live in one spot for 250 years with no issues - it might be pretty hard to convince them they have to leave.
If you’re bored, checkout renderings/maps of California during the Great Flood of 1862! My favorite trivia about that event was that the native Americans warned the settlers and relocated their villages to the hills just prior to the atmospheric rivers. If memory serves, Meteorologists / Atmospheric Scientists didn’t even have a name for them until the 1990s.
With the increasing frequency of “100 year storm”, “200 year fire”, “250 year flood” … it’s pretty unfortunate we’re so terrible at contextualizing event types that haven’t already directly impacted our own lives. Of course paranoia-prepping isn’t really useful, but it’s dumbfounding that preparation isn’t a given.
It is pretty unfortunate, but I don't blame people. Imagine your grandfather telling you stories about his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather dealing with a great flood... they would just be legends.
And in Japan there's those old stone marker monuments telling people not to build below them because of tsunamis or floods or something to that effect.
But I mean I guess when it's as desirable property as the SF Bay Area, the fact that you lose the building on it every hundred years or so is a small price to pay?