I keep coming back to an observation that the places where civilization tends to exist are geologically and climatologically 'interesting'. If it's not one thing it's another.
Italy (Pompeii), Greece (Thera), and Iceland (Eyjafjallajokull) are all in Europe. Africa, most of Russia, and Northern Europe are volcano-free as they're not near fault lines (except the ones in the atlantic ocean and meditteranean sea)
> Africa, most of Russia, and Northern Europe are volcano-free as they're not near fault lines (except the ones in the atlantic ocean and meditteranean sea)
The East African Rift Zone is both an emerging plate boundary and a locus of volcanic and seismic activity.
There are plenty of places without any particular natural risks, e.g., New York City and London, both of which standard and dull four-seasons temperate climates and dead geology.
A large part of London is built on floodplain though, hence the need for the enormous Thames barrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier). Flooding is a pretty big natural risk here.
> There are plenty of places without any particular natural risks, e.g., New York City
I suspect New York City has more deaths per capita over time from the combination of natural environment events (earthquakes, weather, etc.) than California.
NYC earthquake risk is on-par with the Bay Area because while the magnitude of the quakes would be lower, the bedrocks transmits the energy better, the buildings are under-engineered for earthquakes, and it has a higher population density.
NYC is not close to any major geological activity. The east coast, unlike the west coast, has been quiet for, what, 60 million years? The Appalachian mountains are worn-down nubs. The closest seismic zones are, what, the Caribbean and the New Madrid area of Missouri, IIRC.
Living in Ontario the only thing I'm worried about is minor flooding, nothing on the scale that you see on the coasts. Storms (Nothing like in the US), Snow, Rain, Sun. No real major catastrophes possible.
