You know that you can earthquake proof buildings?

Offer to do that plus a bit of extra money on top, and you'll find plenty of rural takers. Pick the cheapest bidder.

There surely are various solutions and it is also a solution to shift side effects to areas where fewer people are affected (and more easily compensated) - but the tone of that statement above was "who cares for rural areas" at least I read it like this, because why else would rural people not care about it?

Which statement are you referring to?

I do agree with the commenter who said that we don't need to earthquake proof agricultural land itself. Especially not against minor wobbles. Fields just lie there.

(Just to avoid confusion: any buildings close to agricultural land need to be considered, of course. I am talking purely about the fields.)

> Why would you think that? Because the peasants are all too stupid to notice an earthquake that damage their houses?

Yes, exactly. I also don’t expect dense residential buildings prone to earthquakes to be prevalent in low density sparsely populated agricultural areas.

There is nothing “fascinating” except that stating facts about rural areas immediately brings out the worst kinds of trolls out of the woodwork.