Constant Risk Zone

In Corruption Regulation Zone, Yazad argues (quite rightly too, if I may add) that people living close to the sea are taking a risk and rather than make laws forbidding them from doing so, it would be better if people are made responsible for their own conscious actions

Anyone building in the first 500 metres of the coastline is taking a risk. Anyone living there is also taking a risk. In a free world people should be allowed to take the risks they want to. They would also develop mechanisms that reduce the risk, like buying insurance. Somehow the “intellectual-moral elite” who advocate these laws seem to think that they are the only ones who should evaluate these risks. I suggest we let those who will reap the rewards (beautiful view, easier access for fishing) also face the risks (storms, cylcones, tsunamis).

I’m in complete agreement with this line of reasoning. Anyone staying too close to the shoreline is playing a game of brinkmanship with nature. It’s a dangerous game and all these people can do is to hope for the best… at all times. So if people still want to stay there… let them! Only… they ought to realize that a Damocles Sword perennially hangs over their heads.

I think having a CRZ law may make reasonable sense in ecological terms i.e. conservation of mangroves, etc. But it makes no sense at all in dis-allowing construction within a specified distance from the shoreline. And that’s because, if you think about it, you’ll realize that it is no less absurd than the utterly ludicrous idea of constructing a sea wall along the coastline.

Lets say we have a strictly enforced CRZ law that states that no construction will be allowed within the first 500 metres of the shoreline. That’s great! Now I have personally witnessed this in Mumbai… and many others would have too… that at many places sea has come inland by more than a few metres in the last few years. In such a case… what do we do? … rework the CRZ boundaries and demolish buildings that now fall within the CRZ and are thus illegal??

I know this is a trivial argument. But then… that’s the point! The rationale of having a CRZ law can be easily rendered redundant by even such trivial arguments!

By the way, just as an aside… Yazad mentions that people living within the first 500 metres could develop mechanisms like buying insurance to offset the risk. But then… insurance companies all over the world run shy of insuring people living under the risk of a natural calamity by claiming it to be an “Act of God”… ‘god’ being a concept that Yazad does not believe in! ;-)