> I mean, how fucking dumb do you need to be to look at a lava flow and cut a road or train track through it? Do they not realize that lava means "run"? Build infrastructure elsewhere.
Right, and nobody should build cities on rivers or coasts, because rivers flood[1] and coasts get hurricanes that cause floods, nobody should build anything in valleys[1], because they flood, nobody should ever build anything in mountains, because they get avalanches and mudslides[1], nobody should build anything on the Ring of Fire, because earthquakes, and the midwest should be uninhabited because tornadoes.
If someone built a two-lane road that cuts through an old lava flow, maybe those people aren't the idiots. Maybe they've done the math, and determined that the cost of going around it is going to be greater than the risk of eruption * cost of dealing with the consequences.
> Right, and nobody should build cities on rivers or coasts,
Many ancient civilizations knew not to build on coasts. Beijing, Xi'an, Cairo, Rome, Paris, Mexico City, Madrid, London, Moscow, Kyoto, most of these cities of critical governmental and strategic importance were not built on coasts for very good reasons.
And then you have some modern hipsters after the 17th century who decided not to take a history lesson and started to build NYC, Shanghai, LA, Tokyo, Shenzhen, Singapore, Washington DC, and other cities on the coasts. Note that none of these cities have much history to them, for a reason. Not a good plan. Humans are pretty dumb.
You've cherry-picked a bunch of non-coastal cities, but completely missed that nearly all of them were built on rivers.
Which have all of the same problems with flooding as coasts, but much worse. Coasts flood when you get a major storm causing a surge, or a major earthquake. Rivers flood when the seasons change, when it rains upstream, when you get a mudslide upstream, when there's a major earthquake sending a tsunami upriver...
Why do you think cities built on coasts and rivers on the whole grew, and out-competed cities that were built inland?
Ancient civilizations did build on coasts, you're cherry picking a handful of cities that weren't, but most (if not all, going off memory) of the cities you listed were built along rivers. Building on the coast gave (and gives) access to trade and fishing which are of great utility to most societies.
Besides, avoiding the coast itself doesn't do you much good. Earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding (from rivers or rain), drought, fire, tornadoes can hit in many different areas even away from the coast. Hell, hurricanes can go pretty far inland and do quite a bit of damage (more from the flooding than the winds, but also the winds, at that point). You'd be hard pressed to find a totally safe place on this planet that could support the entire human population. You'll still need the hazardous areas for agricultural and mining purposes if nothing else, and unless people can handle a 1000 mile commute, you'll end up with communities and cities growing in those places.
Right, and nobody should build cities on rivers or coasts, because rivers flood[1] and coasts get hurricanes that cause floods, nobody should build anything in valleys[1], because they flood, nobody should ever build anything in mountains, because they get avalanches and mudslides[1], nobody should build anything on the Ring of Fire, because earthquakes, and the midwest should be uninhabited because tornadoes.
If someone built a two-lane road that cuts through an old lava flow, maybe those people aren't the idiots. Maybe they've done the math, and determined that the cost of going around it is going to be greater than the risk of eruption * cost of dealing with the consequences.
[1] Stupid Canadians[2], building a highway through a valley, and some mountains. If only someone with some common sense would have come in and told them that this was a bad idea! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2021_Pacific_Northwes...
[2] Now they don't have a highway! https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/aerial-video-of-coquiha...