Of course. And... as population increases, the options reduce such that accepted risks increase, as do the costs of the consequences.

Not necessarily. Here in Florida, our major risk is from hurricanes coming on shore. Our existing population has historically been concentrated in coastal areas. We developed the riskiest areas first and biggest. But our most recent population growth, over the last decade and a half, has been growing fastest in inland areas - especially the areas around Orlando - and slower in the coastal communities. Our population distribution has actually been improving (or at least standing still) in terms of mitigating that risk. And there's tons of room in those central areas for more population, if demand is there - our increasing population isn't going to materially foreclose the "safer" options.

And as I originally pointed out, we're already past NY and CA in that respect. Our population density is already higher than both those states. We're already as "congested" (on a statewide level) as those two states are. So whatever you think of Zakaria's snapshot analysis, it's not distorted by Florida being a lower population density state than NYS or CA.