Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mnbull4you t1_j9cwn8i wrote

I remember the cola wars between Coke and Pepsi. I hope it's not as bad as that.

0

InternetPeon t1_j9cxsnz wrote

Oooooh! I totally think were gonna be responsible here and all come together collaboratively, share sacrifice, and everyone's gonna' get through ok.

16

Cliff_Sedge t1_j9cy2s0 wrote

Same predictions that The Pentagon was making in the 1990s, except it looks like we'll be ahead of schedule.

129

elshankar t1_j9cz4s9 wrote

We past the threshold for taking action on climate change several years, if not decades, ago. Meaning that even if we had zero emissions starting tomorrow we are already doomed to face wars over food and water. We can do everything within our power, but melting ice caps, thawing tundra, and wild fires will displace so much CO2 that nothing we can presently do will help.

We'd be better off focusing on new technologies for producing food and drinking water rather than focusing on climate actions. Carbon capture might be a potential solution, but not until we get rid of the idea of carbon offsets, as those are just a worthless ploy to allow polluters to continue to pollute.

57

neverendingchalupas t1_j9cz9eg wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,892,728)

The only way to solve the issue is population reduction.

Russia is going to be vital in providing food to Europe and the rest of the world and that is who everyone decided to sanction. Russia will have record food crop production while every other country is screwed.

In the meantime everyone is Europe is burning coal and wood, Africa is experiencing a population explosion, and its another year year of heat waves that limit food and energy production, dry up water resources and what else?

−1

InstructionDue758 t1_j9czi48 wrote

As long as there is profit to be squeezed out of our current system it will continue. We abandoned science long ago.

5

jearron t1_j9d09y3 wrote

“Timmermans said that there was a “nascent” sense of urgency within society, which needs to be harnessed by industry and government in order to implement change.”

this is truth.

20

i_like_my_dog_more t1_j9d0gxy wrote

Man, what a thankless, hopeless job this man must have. Literally your job being a living Cassandra complex.

8

macross1984 t1_j9d1p9a wrote

Hope the world will not end up becoming like the movie, Soylent Green.

2

laxyharpseal t1_j9d21nb wrote

pretty sure i saw this kind of headline 10 years ago...

1

keyboardstatic t1_j9d2so2 wrote

We need to build community's around water collection from rain, local food production via vegetable and serous mushroom farms with aquatic farming of eels,

Our communities need to have integrated food production where we live as much as possible with each community built around a central super school that functions as community hub, lifelong education support has elements of flexible manufacturing. Is linked to other hubs via rail.

So the majority of us can travel via bike, skate scooter and walking to the majority of our life needs.

Take cars out of the equation for most people, build real gardens where we live, herb, vegetable, orchards, fake river systems that flow circular through the different systems so it's filtered by the plants, grows eels and other types of fish to eat.

If we can re set how we live, we can lower our carbon emissions. Re grow our ecology.

8

funwithtentacles t1_j9d5j5k wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,893,212)

We really don't have to do anything...

Diseases like Covid will eventually take care of overpopulation.

It's nothing new either... Even I 30+ years ago in basic high school biology we were taught that monoculture invites disease...

None of what we're going through now is anything we didn't know 40-50 years ago.

As a species we're just experts at complacency and ignoring everything that doesn't impact us directly...

It's going to catch up to us one way or the other...

20

Chairman_Mittens t1_j9d6741 wrote

Hell, just the vague rumor that there might be some supply chain issues during COVID was enough to cause panic, mass hoarding and shortages.

Can you imagine how people are going to act when we get our first real taste of a global warming summer, start hearing about widespread crop failures and drouts?

384

kentgoodwin t1_j9d6m87 wrote

At this point in history, drifting into the future without any clear idea of where our species needs to go, will be catastrophic. It is time to step back and think about what it would take to make our civilization sustainable for the long-term. It is about much more than just climate change. www.aspenproposal.org

−3

funwithtentacles t1_j9d6szc wrote

Replying to macross1984 (#1,893,070)

Soylent Green was overly dramatic and unrealistic...

Think algae, insects, underground vertical farming, etc.

There is really only one problem to solve here...

It's energy... Figure out cheap energy and cheap energy storage and most of the problems go away...

Well that, and getting rid of the greedy people on the top that are willing to literally walk over dead bodies all day long... that much of it is 'Soylent Green' like, but then again, we been there for a long time already...

Energy and logistics... We grow way more food that we need to feed everyone on Earth, but when 30% of it is thrown into the trash because it's inconvenient to feed people because it won't generate a profite to the few people on top, you know where the issues are... and they're not with not being able to actually feed people.

13

SuspiciousStable9649 t1_j9dbqdh wrote

Replying to funwithtentacles (#1,893,554)

This criticism was quite foretelling: Penelope Gilliatt of The New Yorker was negative, writing, "This pompously prophetic thing of a film hasn't a brain in its beanbag. Where is democracy? Where is the popular vote? Where is women's lib? Where are the uprising poor, who would have suspected what was happening in a moment?"[15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

There appears to be a lot of beanbags missing brains.

5

RedTrout811 t1_j9ddo3e wrote

World to face Wars no matter what! Time to grow-up Children.

−7

MidnightRun2022 t1_j9df27r wrote

That’s why Bill Gates is buying up farmland ….. just to ensure that outcome?

35

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9df7ah wrote

2nd Headline: "World's Billionares and Multinational Corporations Shrug - 'we'll have food and water.' "

122

Vextordude t1_j9dfw0j wrote

Man, this is like my third or fourth "apocalypse".

0

eliser58 t1_j9djw9c wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,893,212)

Reducing population by not reproducing with such blatant disregard for the future. In my opinion humans who feel the need to procreate could be satisfied with one child, for the good of the planet. Down vote away!!

14

MustLovePunk t1_j9dnuc3 wrote

Replying to MidnightRun2022 (#1,894,370)

That’s also why billionaires are investing in seed banks and buying apocalypse mansions in New Zealand, private islands, and investing in AI, robotics, robotics defense, other forms of automation, and space. They’re prepping to avoid the wars, famine, violence, mass migrations, pandemics and diseases that 99% of us will endure…

59

user_dan t1_j9ds8kh wrote

Replying to elshankar (#1,892,795)

The solution in the 2017 IPCC report was stop putting CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 capture and refreeze the poles (throwing up particles to deflect sunlight). CO2 capture alone is not enough.

The reason to continue moving to renewable is that they are cheaper and less resource intensive. Lots of logistics involved in fossil fuel discovery extraction, refining, transport, among other things.

Even if we started today, we have to deal with destabilized climate. More disasters. Etc. Eventually, we will have refugee crisis. A proposal is to start building cities now (or soonish) in the north to make the process easier.

Not sure we are dealing with a doomsday this century, but we will be dealing with a mess from wilder and wilder weather.

9

ApocalypseSpokesman t1_j9dtcqi wrote

The problem is that you don't only need to convince people of the reality of climate change. You have to persuade them then to act against their own immediate interest and change the way they live. You have to convince the majority of humans to willingly decrease their quality of life, and not for a short period, but forever.

It is, in other words impossible.

48

CannabisJibbitz t1_j9dw2nz wrote

Im all for action against climate change, but how the fuck do they expect people to take this seriously when I cant even access the article with ad block on. Seems to me ads and profits from them are more important than getting this critical message out to anyone who clicks the page. The moment you do that youre going to lose people immediately and they aren't going to be well informed. Whole system is just fucked.

67

DJbuddahAZ t1_j9dxb0c wrote

Absolutely 💯, there are huuuge things on the horizon. That will change the human rave forever.

1

Mysterious_Horror_67 t1_j9e00fa wrote

I don’t think not having enough water is going to be a problem much longer.

Once glaciers melt, that will lower the salinization point of the ocean, therefore leading to higher evaporation rate leading to more moisture over land. Deserts will turn into grasslands. Mountains will turn into rain Forrest. Etc.

Yes, the sea level will likely rise, but the real threat is floods in higher elevations on land. Rivers rising. Lakes growing. Etc. Not sure how quickly this will happen, but I would imagine rather quickly if the very large glacier in Antarctica the size of Florida breaks off into the ocean.

−1

incelwiz t1_j9e0tyw wrote

Wars have always had an economic component. There have been wars for food and water in the past. This isn't anything new.

1

IrishRogue3 t1_j9e7t24 wrote

Yup he is right. Climate migration is gonna get real.

3

maraca101 t1_j9e7t6v wrote

Well start suing the corporations that make that impossible!

1

Medcait t1_j9efuei wrote

Well. We face wars anyways

−1

SumerianSunset t1_j9eg4bq wrote

How can we when even so many of you here still defend capitalism, the unsustainable cancer that's driving us towards this.

Edit: downvote me then, you blind fools.

0

JuniorSeniorTrainee t1_j9eiwms wrote

Why the future tense? It's like I tell my aging mother when she says "I choose to believe it won't get that bad".

IT IS THAT BAD. Just but for you. And not for your grandkids... Yet. As long as it's only that bad for "those countries", it's bit a problem.

7

iammudasrali t1_j9emnew wrote

I guess he missed the entirety of human history

0

Certain-Lingonberry8 t1_j9emu8q wrote

Replying to ApocalypseSpokesman (#1,895,967)

I've been an environmental science teacher for 20 years. Just mentioning limiting meat consumption or any other mild reduction of modern convenience, the students(now adults) would become visibly angered/incredulous. Shout "No way!".

I worked in US and Asia. Very few can imagine doing with less. I know corporations pollute far more than individuals. That's mentioned often, but those corporations are made up of people.

31

Material-Engineer177 t1_j9eqe0y wrote

Replying to SycoJack (#1,898,520)

That is the course we are on. Every time this goes too far in history we see what happens.

Head in the sand if you want, but if we keep pursuing the current economic model then we will see large scale civil violence.

10

CriticalSpirit t1_j9erpc3 wrote

Replying to ApocalypseSpokesman (#1,895,967)

I dont think it's impossible, but you should start by taking away from those who have plenty to give. Ban private jets before increasing flight taxes. Take away excessive profits from oil companies before demanding citizens invest in electric cars.

10

gomaith10 t1_j9ev317 wrote

A bright and breezey bloke, not!

0

GustavoFromAsdf t1_j9ewkrl wrote

There just were two massive ecological catastrophes on Ohio and ended in no action from the government or the responsible corporation. We're fucked

1

Geass10 t1_j9ex9t1 wrote

Obviously I don't want this to happen.

However, it may take the cost of Florida or more common catastrophic climate events for the world to see. The problem today faces is that corporations try to blame regular people for the climate crisis. At the same time Civilians are becoming more aware that it's deregulation and capitalism at the heart of this problem.

My current view it will take a massive catastrophe possibly on the scale of a nuclear bomb going off for the world to see. Again I stress hopefully nothing like that never happens.

1

24Splinter t1_j9exujp wrote

I always found it interesting that the ones pushing for climate reform and climate “new deals”, are the one buying large percentages of farm land.

0

[deleted] t1_j9ey7wm wrote

When are we going to tackle overpopulation?

−1

crunchypuddle t1_j9f0g9z wrote

Replying to Chairman_Mittens (#1,893,496)

Meanwhile in the land of reality genetically modified crops are being produced which can handle rising global tempuratures and yields are presently up year over year.

Here's some actual science on the future of crop yields on already established farm land and not just some histrionic rant about crop failure

TLDR climate change means just that... change. Some yields maintain, some go down. Some places that weren't arable now are.

2

whyuhavtobemad t1_j9f1avr wrote

Replying to GoofAckYoorsElf (#1,899,336)

Sarcasm my friend. People who don't acknowledge climate change are certainly refusing to see what's happening around them.

Serious answer is people will need to have supplies of essentials and learn to consume less. With the cost of living going up, people are already forced into these habits.

5

ThatsNotMyDogma t1_j9f1rcf wrote

So you mean to tell me that all of those science fiction writers I've been reading my whole life, the writers who "refined, intellectual" readers dismiss as frivolous, have been right all this time?

I guess the joke is on those truly smart readers.

0

shady8x t1_j9f2494 wrote

World to face wars over food and water**.**

1

SycoJack t1_j9f2y9b wrote

Replying to Material-Engineer177 (#1,898,542)

>Head in the sand if you want

I think you're wrong about who has their head in the sand.

>but if we keep pursuing the current economic model then we will see large scale civil violence.

We already are starting to see violence, but it's directed at the people by the puppets of the elite, not the elite. Look at all the home grown terrorism that has gone down the past several years.

The absolute vast majority of it has been directed at the people and not the elite.

We aren't going to be eating the rich any time soon.

9

nobodilicious t1_j9f3r9q wrote

There would be no shortage if nations that waste tons of food, manage more efficiently and share some of that food.

Then again that would be humane, and rarely do humans act in a humane manner.

1

nooo82222 t1_j9f6mol wrote

I wonder after this Ukraine and Russia war how bad will Ukraine farm land will be ? Maybe it’s time for the war to focus to combat other things like how to do things better

2

Just_another_Beaner t1_j9fa0ca wrote

Replying to FabiIV (#1,899,882)

The title and short article acts like nothing is being done and just saying things we've already heard; without providing much in terms of suggested action or a status update. Mostly speaks of the negative outcome involving a topic that usually causes mass hysteria i.e. the beginning of the pandemic. Sounds like you actually need to look it up.

−2

gambvestor t1_j9fe9de wrote

Replying to CannabisJibbitz (#1,896,216)

Not arguing for or against these ads, but just to explain a bit how it works (from my modest experience in the industry, maybe some companies do it differently).

Basically the people in charge of monetising the website are from a different team than the publishing team.

I’ve been in meetings with both teams invited, and they basically fight the whole time, the publishing team wants to offer the best user experience, and the monetization team wants to maximize profit. Obviously those are conflicting goals, most of the time.

And that’s when they even have an internal monetization team, because sometimes it’s a third-party company that controls all the ads of a website.

When i talk about the “publishing team”, it often doesn’t include the writer, they are freelance and get orders from a publishing director or something like that.

TL;DR: The schizophrenia is due to a “silo effect” (compartmentalization) with different people working on different goals, that are often conflicting.

One interesting to realize is that when you’re reading free content, you’re not the client, you’re the “product”. Advertisers are the client, and that’s where the publisher’s revenue stream come from.

I like to compare us readers to a farmer’s chicken: he spends most of his time taking care of them, but his goal is to make them as tasty as possible, for his customers.

3

1015267 t1_j9fex7b wrote

Honestly this is why I’m such a strong 2A supporter. The idea that the government is corrupt and that global supply chains are going to be severely unstable is not compatible with the idea of disarmament.

−1

Takingthelongview t1_j9ffi4v wrote

Yet there's still so much wasted food being found in retail garbage dumpsters.

r/dumpsterdiving

1

feastking89 t1_j9fkqdo wrote

Natural way to reduce population, yeaaa let's fight it

1

CaregiverNo421 t1_j9flh7b wrote

Replying to ApocalypseSpokesman (#1,901,437)

Ehh, what do you mean by an order of magnitude greater than 'Don't leave your house except to exercise once per day? With hospitality etc completely shut down. Like an order of magnitude greater than that is what, returning to the pre industrial societies?

1

Trance354 t1_j9fmha7 wrote

Replying to WillowSnows (#1,896,742)

Try reading Forever War. We are just before the Calorie Wars, or the Ration Wars. And we already have the military intelligence necessary to institute a "Fuck you, Sir" morale policy.

Missing the exoplanet colony ship getting destroyed by an unknown alien race, though.

18

ApocalypseSpokesman t1_j9fmxaf wrote

Replying to CaregiverNo421 (#1,901,859)

Something like that, yes. It's a mathematical impossibility to keep billions of people alive without adding to the CO2 problem, so this is the kind of thing it would take to achieve negative emissions:

"Food is your own concern, but we're going to impound and destroy every automobile and gas-powered device so you don't get any ideas. Also, say goodbye to electricity, and water may be spotty. Don't complain or we will execute you. If we catch anyone burning wood, the whole household's going in the ground."

2

kentuckypirate t1_j9fn7t8 wrote

Replying to JuniorSeniorTrainee (#1,898,007)

This is such a strange sentiment to me. Right now, I’m in my 30s with 2 young kids. I see how my parents look at my kids with the same sort of unconditional love that I have for them. If I’m lucky, I’ll have that same sort of relationship with my grandkids in 30 years.

And yeah, maybe things won’t be markedly different by then…or maybe even within my lifetime…but my grandchildren are going to become grandparents too. Are they going to have to look at their young grandchildren in 2110 or something like that and explain why they’re just completely screwed?

My point is that even if you push the consequences out for decades, and even if your concern is limited to how it will affect you and yours, It’s really not hard to imagine how someone you personally know and love just cannot escape dealing with the consequences.

1

Trance354 t1_j9foj3k wrote

Replying to ClownMorty (#1,901,436)

I wonder what would happen if the religious leaders all got together and canonized suicide, removing it from the list of damning sins. Further, if they noted you'd go straight to the Rapture if you offed yourself.

What % of the truly faithful would voluntarily remove themselves from the human population? I realize not all of them, but I can see entire industries cropping up to take advantage of the suicide rate increasing by an order of magnitude, almost overnight. I also see a lot of fundies offing entire families in Tent Revivals, so a new set of laws requiring all suicides for religious reasons to be at least 18 years of age, etc.

Sanctioned suicide in jails. Find Jesus, remove yourself from the population. Burden on taxpayers is eased.

Why do we have religion, again?

6

Abd_SMT t1_j9fv0la wrote

Wait , when did we get back to the stone age ?

1

Keyspell t1_j9fztlq wrote

We get what we fucking deserve!!

1

Trance354 t1_j9g120m wrote

Replying to elshankar (#1,892,795)

What's worse is that we can't do shit about what's coming. We are, at best, 20 years behind the environmental curve. What we did 20 years ago is haunting us right now. What we will be dealing with in 20 years, we are doing right now.

The glaciers will melt. The resulting sea level rise will cause more warming(snow/ice reflects solar radiation, the dark ocean absorbs it), causing more glacial erosion, causing more sea level rise.

It won't be Water World, and it won't be The Day After Tomorrow, but the result will be somewhere in the middle of that and what we have now.

What the world will look like will be anyone's guess. It isn't just sea level rise. Desalination, warmer oceans, more powerful storms, the breakdown of the North Atlantic current, followed by breakdowns in other currents, will all effect where humans will be able to live, what crops will survive, and what we will be able to live through.

You think the sudden invention of space tourism is odd? Companies want to put a base on the moon. A self-sustaining base. Where do you think the ultra rich will go hide, when they've finished extracting everything from earth?

1

Trance354 t1_j9g23ao wrote

Replying to eliser58 (#1,893,087)

There's a certain irony in our population hitting the point where a disease carried by one of our major food stocks is on the verge of killing off a good chunk of our population, mostly because we are denying the fact that the threat exists, denying the lifesaving powers of the vaccines we could save ourselves with, and in so doing, prolonging the current pandemic, which is just a warmup for what's coming.

Vaccines are my friend, but if my friend isn't embraced by everyone, a single mutation could doom us all.

Evolution in practice.

1

OkFan6322 t1_j9g3e89 wrote

What do you think Ukraine is? It’s the first food war.

1

JohnJDumbear t1_j9g41l7 wrote

I don’t have time to read this. Gonna go buy a case of Spam, and a couple of cases of water. That outta last a week or so.

1

big_nothing_burger t1_j9ga0dn wrote

America selling off rights to our bodies of water to other countries is peak late stage capitalism. Who the hell cares about drinking water existing in a decade if I can make money now.

1

crunchypuddle t1_j9ggo5l wrote

Replying to Ghune (#1,900,500)

There's a credible IEP report (assuming this is what you're referring to) which asserts 1 billion displaced by 2050. This is probably the report cited if you've seen this assertion in articles.

It should be clarified that's worldwide over the course of several decades. Up 3.7% over last year excluding Ukrainian refugees. I think the slower migration will help to offset some of these social pressures you're projecting.

This article does a pretty good job at illustrating which regions will be affected by this migration

TLDR again: Not so much gloom and doom. Some places are going to grow. Africa will see a boom.

Reddit tends to conflate climate change with climate disaster. I'm not saying climate change shouldn't be taken seriously, I'm just attempting to take some of the hysterics out of this situation, because if you believe reddit we're all doomed and we shouldn't even try... which just isn't true.

1

dofffman t1_j9glq4s wrote

Replying to FrodoBagHodler (#1,897,674)

Its oftentimes happenstance. If I had went a different career path that had gained traction quickly enough I might have had kids in the late 90's before I realized how messed up things were. Late 90's me thought recycling was being recycled and we had a handle on things and would only work harder to do more as a society for the environment.

1

GoofAckYoorsElf t1_j9gnoe7 wrote

Replying to jarlvk (#1,903,722)

No. I'm just realistic. Mankind is not going to adapt over night. If change comes over night, mankind will riot. That's how we are. The individual can do something about it. The masses won't. It has happend. Only recently even. During COVID. We all know how people reacted on only a very brief risk of having to change their lifestyle. With looting and foraging.

"Imagine it's war and nobody goes" does not work! Collective action would be required. However that does only happen if sitting on our butts becomes more inconvenient than acting. We are lazy bastards. Like everything in the universe we always strive for the lowest possible level of energy. Or in our case, the lowest level of inconvenience. Thus, alas, things have to become way more inconvenient for us to act as a collective, not just as individuals that cannot change anything alone.

1

PaleontologistClear4 t1_j9gro7r wrote

I swear I've seen this in a movie before, maybe several movies, it never ends well...

1

Dietmeister t1_j9gsy78 wrote

What the headline should have been: "The world will face wars over food and water, EU needs to be self-sustaining, green with forest and strong in military or else it'll be doomed like the rest of the world."

We seriously need to arm up like crazy and stop spending money on bullshit luxury, create forest and have no growth nor decline of population. Its the only way to keep at least one place on earth inhabitable; Europe.

1

pawnografik t1_j9guc9o wrote

My money says it breaks out in North Africa. Probably Egypt and some other player like Ethiopia fighting over the Nile.

1

Zannt t1_j9gv181 wrote

Replying to Sinaaaa (#1,899,337)

Very true, just look what happened in Hong Kong the people revolted but we're still unable to make the government change. It's just a matter of time before the rest of the world gets to this point.

1

rickthegiraff t1_j9gzulk wrote

At least it will be over something substantial for a change

1

YoanB OP t1_j9h98v8 wrote

Replying to vjcdan (#1,908,450)

Absolutely. At the 2.7 degree Celsius increase in temperature that we are currently heading towards, it will be war everywhere. Too many people are unaware of how catastrophic such an increase is.

2

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hk70i wrote

Replying to abobtosis (#1,898,769)

I'm not sure if you're missing the point here or for unknown reasons protecting billionaires. These companies make billions in profits. Profits are after all employees, bills, and taxes are paid. Many corporations don't pay their employees enough to eat or be housed and then make even MORE in profits. I don't really care if the CEO's net worth is based on nonsense stock prices, they still have WAY too much and don't pay nearly enough in taxes.

The point was people with a ridiculous amount of money are not worried about the effects of climate change because they think they have the wealth to protect themselves from resource insecurity.

1

Shamefuru-Dispray t1_j9hlavs wrote

Replying to MustLovePunk (#1,895,334)

While I’m alive at least one billionaire runs the risk of experiencing what the rest of us will be forced to endure because of their greed. They should save everyone some time and effort and baste themselves in butter, salt and pepper now while they still have the choice.

1

T-Rex_Woodhaven t1_j9hnabg wrote

Replying to dinosaurs_quietly (#1,900,252)

I would say there are significantly higher % of non-billionares who care about the climate crisis than % of billionaires, but that's not the point. The point is that 1 billionare in a capitalistic system has millions of times the power to change the dynamic on how we address climate change than the average person does. We could have 10 million people march on D.C. to pass legislation that gets us moving toward a more sustainable future, but 5 billionares could determine what is in that legislation because of their lobbying power. It makes regular people feel powerless.

2

StupidPockets t1_j9hrtdg wrote

Replying to funwithtentacles (#1,893,473)

In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. In 1938, Guy Callendar connected carbon dioxide increases in Earth's atmosphere to global warming.

1

abobtosis t1_j9hse84 wrote

Replying to T-Rex_Woodhaven (#1,909,834)

I'm not protecting anyone. I'm saying they'll be just as fucked as the rest of us.

If every employee they have can't eat and society collapses, they're not gonna have very much left. Most of their net worth is locked in stocks which aren't liquid, and if their company collapses they'd probably become a lot less wealthy.

1

[deleted] t1_j9ijpjx wrote

Replying to Sinaaaa (#1,899,337)

True but no place is perfect, defenses arent about 100% its about rising the cost it takes to get passed them so high that the attacker is not willing to pay that cost. Usually the cost is lives

1