In a context of rising tides, yes, that's not a smart idea. Like it wasn't smart to do it in the context of middle-age piracy in the Mediterranean, or when the Roman Empire crumbled and cities on plains became indefensible - people moved to hills and mountains, further from the coast.
Sendai was hit by a tsunami and the cost was huge, but if you visit Sendai now, it’s quite nice.
People can understand this kind of risk.
There was a disaster, it got cleaned up. Now, people live there and are happy.
The same is true of many other floods.
So… I’d say we technologically advanced enough to deal with flood waters.
Unlike, literally every nuclear disaster.
Believe what you want to believe dude. No amount of snark, prancing or shaking your fist at the sky about nuclear safety is going to convince people it’s safe.
…until we have technological solutions that more effectively deal with nuclear radiation, radioactive substances and radiation related illness.
I've stayed with people in Sendai before and after the tsunami.
Based on the snarky prancing I don't think you have, dude.
Watch footage of that event again and repeat the words, "People can understand this kind of risk".
Sendai is a much smaller city and it had over 100k destroyed buildings, 15k dead or missing, and well over 100k without shelter. Estimates of the damage to infrastructure is estimated in the $Trillion range (over $300B spent in direct govt rebuilding incentives).
Maybe we shouldn't build large cities next to water since we're not technologically advanced enough to deal with natural disasters?