Lives are ~75 years long, should I actually invest any effort into large-scale problems that occur at scales longer than my life when there are risks that are far higher around which I can make direct changes?
Depends on how much effort it takes. Statistically, my house will never burn down within my lifetime, but the $20 it takes to buy a fire extinguisher is worth it. It also doesn't take much effort to do the types of things mentioned on https://www.ready.gov/kit
Likewise, I have all-electic heating and no gas service to my home, but a carbon monoxide detector only costs a few dollars so I still have one even though the risk is very low (most fires would probably trip the smoke detectors first I think.)
If it happens during your lifetime, it will likely only be once. So 'it never happened to me before' is not a very good way to reason about this sort of risk.
That's kind of an amusing way to put it: "Why would I prepare for a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe? It never happened to me before."
Please recall that when the last "big one" happened in the Bay Area, the outcome was very few deaths (63 people died), but decades of economic problems. 500 people die in car accidents in the bay area every year. It would seem that fatalities from earthquakes aren't a good model for making rational decisions about what is likely to affect you in your lifetime.
You wear your seat belt, right? That's obviously a risk you already take seriously, so I'd not take it for a bound on tolerance for risk.
Cars pretty much define my bounds on tolerance for risk.