Why not?

Virtually every decision we make as a society is a trade off, from highway speed limits to school funding. We never optimize for the lowest possible risk of death.

This is missing the point I was trying to make. Of course everything is a tradeoff, I'm not trying to claim we are post scarcity. I'm making a point about aspects of the "trading space" -- for lack of a better term -- being poorly represented by the discussions here. In my opinion, I think we are doing a disservice by trying to focus on the things we can be dispassionate about -- as an example arguing about what portion of our nation we want to abandon to nature while maintaining and actively suppressing the aspects of this calamity that stoke moral outrage. Maybe I'm just the crazy techno-hippy here, but it says something to me about this community when none of the responses posted above touch on the most ideologically charged statement I made: "fairness to the owners be damned". Blind spots abound, and it's a shame we can't have a more interesting discussion.

I'm curious about your opinions: What is the point of civilization if not to work at minimizing death and suffering (or to maximize well-being and liberty, same-same)? What is of higher value to you, and what do you see as the point of all this?