London will be in that position eventually, and no Government is going to say, 'ok we'll let it go under and move to the Midlands.'

So I guess your option 2 is where the thought and money needs to go but that's expensive and they seem to consider letting nature do it's damage as the easiest option.

Ad astra per aspera

1. Most of the planet is uninhabitable. Between storms, tornadoes, drought, tsunamis, earthquake, potential ocean-sized rock slides and exploding Yellowstone calderas, nowhere is definitively safe. It's more about acceptable risk and mitigation. Which leads to -

2. Whether or not they're affordable, acceptable risk and mitigation get in the way of a familiar way of life. You can build houses on stilts in the Thames eschewawy, but when the river floods everything stops for a week or so. Your rowing boat will get you to the neighbours, but unless someone invents submarine supermarkets, there's no way to buy food or get to work.

1) Should we be trying to build growing economies in places where nature is so clearly against it. Is this like building a town on the side of an active volcano?

Maybe not, but it's also the case that these kinds of storms are not unheard of even in New Orleans.  Hell, Charleston still has its scares from Hugo.  SW Florida still hasn't fully recovered from the 2004 season, and SE Florida only fully recovered from Andrew because of the huge boom the area experienced for the last 16 years.

The competence just isn't there anymore.  The levees weren't great to begin with.  Now they're pretty much useless, because the Bush administration didn't learn its lesson, despite the Louisiana press, especially the Times-Picayune and some national press and the city shouting for three years that this was going to happen again.  The Corps basically went in and half-assed it.

Again.

As TBG pointed out, there's nowhere on the planet that's entirely safe.  We all know, for example, that they're just waiting for The Big One^TM out in California.

We can't hurricane-proof anything.  But we can save many lives by not being stupid.  A huge chunk of deaths after hurricanes come as a result of people being arrogant and stupid, not knowing to avoid standing water (powerlines), or to stay off the road because of the potential for debris or even the potential to not be able to see the road (leaving you to potentially go off it, get stuck in a ditch, and drown).

Katrina was one of the exceptions to those, simply because of the massive amounts of water.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

Should we be trying to build growing economies in places where nature is so clearly against it. Is this like building a town on the side of an active volcano?

Ya know, you have the annoying habit of putting your finger on the crucial issues.  ;-)

Like the sides of volcanos, the Caribbean is marvelously fruitful, agriculturally productive.  Three and even four growing seasons, compared to temperate climes, are common.  Some of the islands, like Cuba, have mountains creating micro-climates enabling one to grow just about anything.

This comes at the cost of hurricanes and tropical storms.

Should the Caribbean industrialize given the continual risk?  Probably not.  But what about the people who live there?  Should they give up and cut their throats?  At their current economic (wealth creation) situation the Caribbean is over-exploited, over-populated.  Assuming, a large assumption I grant, First World industrialization it's under-exploited, not over-populated.  

...can we conceive of if not "hurricane proof" then at least more "hurricane resistant" infrastructure and housing?

Yes and No.

Yes, application of known engineering techniques can greatly improve hurricane "proofing."  As Cuba, to some degree, has done.

No, it is impossible to prevent hurricane damage to physical and environmental infrastructures.  At enormous cost.  Which the governments and citizens can't afford.  


Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

Quote from Review (found at the link) in the Library Journal.

The first revolution of which we have adequate record occurred in the 13th century: it coincided with the onslaught of the Black Death and put an end to the forward movement and optimism of the High Middle Ages. Later price crises coincided with devastating religious wars and social unrest in the 17th century, revolutions at the end of the 18th century, and the Great Depression and the horrors of totalitarianism of our own century. Today, we face another devastating wave of inflation: "after 1975...ratios of wealth inequality reached their highest levels in four centuries of American history....The principal victims [are]...the young people who have no hope for the future and no memory of better times in the past. The result [is] a rapid growth of alienation, anomie, confusion, and despair." Fischer combines a lively narrative with cogent analysis and sound advice. Essential for scholarly collections, this fine book will also be appreciated by lay readers.

Heavy rains during a drought will first fill-up the dried-out lakes, ponds, and other water holding areas.  Mostly with water but also sediment and other debris.

After that, when the ground is saturated and everything is full, it will cause disastrous flooding.  As happened recently in the New Mexico town of Ruidoso.

 

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!

The eye of Hurricane Gustav made landfall near Cocodrie, Louisiana, about 9:30 a.m. CT, the National Hurricane Center said.

Winds were sending whitecaps over levees in New Orleans, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported no major problems.

There were reports of water going over the Industrial Canal levee near a railroad bridge, said Chris Macaluso, a spokesman for the Louisiana Office of Coastal Protection and Restoration. The Port of New Orleans will raise the bridge to ease pressure on the system, he said.

Meant to but, somehow, it didn't make it in.

Och nu den svenska kocken bakar en Alaskan älg jägare. Bonk! Bonk! Bonk!