Vulnerability paradox

In some disaster recovery research I've been reading recently, Rodney Runyan, in his article Small Business in the Face of Crisis, notes:

" With the technological advances societies have seen over the past century, we often feel that disasters can be safely predicted or controlled. But the paradox is that the safer our world becomes, the more vulnerable we are when a disaster actually happens."

This strikes true for New Orleans. The levee system reduced seasonal flooding and loss from storm surge during smaller hurricanes. However, when Katrina did hit, the loss was catastrophic. Much of the housing was built with little or no thought to flooding and was quickly destroyed by the water. Residential and commercial construction expanded into previous swamp land that had been uninhabitable before the levees. The Corps and FEMA furthered an unwarranted sense of safety by basing flood maps on rainfall and drainage, rather than on levee breach scenarios.

It seems obvious that people who regularly experience the inconveniences and losses from hurricanes, earthquakes, floods are more used to the experience. They may also have less to loose because they do not accumulate what can be easily destroyed by such events.

With technological strategies for disaster reduction in place, it is definitely more of an affront to our sense of safety when a unexpectedly large hazard does occur. We are less physically prepared when we don't regularly experience disasters. Nor are we able to as easily pass down disaster resilience knowledge or a sense of continued watchfulness from one generation to the next when the period between disasters is long.

But, on the other hand, technology has also done much to reduce losses (especially loss of life) from disasters....even if it also creates a false sense of complete safety. I certainly want the best in building codes, early warning systems, urban planning ... and yes, the occasional levee, even if I know that are only technological tools for disaster reduction, not the complete solution.

Perhaps it isn't that we are better or worse off with newer technologies, but that the pattern of losses, vulnerabilities and capacities shift. It is these shifts that we need to really pay attention to. Following a comment below by HonSanto, its not that we are overdeveloped, but that we may be dysfunctionally developed. It's an interesting paradox to ponder. Thoughts?