But if you assume the probability of strike is increasing over time, as is the population of all these areas, then the best alternative (although horrible to im

But if you assume the probability of strike is increasing over time, as is the population of all these areas, then the best alternative (although horrible to imagine), may be sacrificing 10m lives now to save 100m lives in 10 years. Its not pretty, but can you say you believe given another 10 years unchecked development the likelihood of strike and deaths is lower?