This is not a new question: Now that we’ve seen a storm’s power to disrupt the flimsy pretensions of our species to build homes on the shifting sands of our shores, what do we do next? Do we build again, or do we retreat from the shoreline to safer ground?

Sandy now forces us to revisit the question.

The answers seem likely to turn out much the same as they have in the past.

On Nov. 15, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo created three commissions to study what Sandy did to us. The governor should make sure they address the build-or-abandon-to-nature issue.

They don’t have to start from scratch. The problem arose long before Sandy.

Two decades ago, a powerful storm in December 1992 did serious damage to homes on Fire Island. In its aftermath, Newsday ran a series of detailed stories about the build-or-abandon conflict. The series found, for example, that a year before the 1992 storm, a state commission headed by then- Lt. Gov. Stan Lundine had recommended a policy of “strategic retreat” from the shore.

That was in keeping with what coastal geologists say: The ideal solution would be to clear away the rubble of the latest storm, don’t build back nearly as close to the water, and let nature take its course.

No government, however, has been able to win legal battles with owners who want to live as close to the water’s edge as they can. Courts uniformly rule against any prohibition of rebuilding as an unconstitutional “taking” of property. And now, here we are again.

Some parts of Long Island’s 1,200 miles of shoreline have fared better than others. Now the questions are what to fix, what to rebuild — and where.

Our two U.S. senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, are pushing for $500 million to $1 billion to fund seven Army Corps of Engineers coastal protection projects from Staten Island to Montauk Point — including such locations as Long Beach, Gilgo Beach, Fire Island and Asharoken — that already have congressional authorization.

The senators obviously intend to be relentless on that funding and those projects. There may be no appetite right now for the back-to-nature approach that scientists recommend. But it should at least get a respectful hearing by one of Cuomo’s commissions.

These are some of the big questions that need answering over the next few months, and the commissions seem like a natural starting point to get some answers:

What areas absolutely must be protected by building sand back up on beaches — and what areas should be left to the mercies of tide and wind?

Can we afford to continue that sand replacement over and over after monster storms yet to come?

How can we legally discourage building back in highly dangerous locations?

Can we change building codes so future construction has to withstand storms as fierce as Sandy?

If Sandy finally makes us look at these crucial coastal questions and come up with real long-term answers, she will have done us at least one favor.

— Newsday (N.Y.)