And it might -- long term.
Only, as things are now, between an antibiotic stopping working and finding a replacement, there could be tens of millions of deaths...
Aside from wishful thinking there's nothing that guarantees that we'll find the next cure as soon as an old one becomes obsolete.
The risk is out there that at some point Gonorrhea can become the scourge of the human race. It is instructive to review how the staph bacteria has gone from nuisance to menace. But the exposure isn't there for Gonorreha to get ahead of us. Read that opinion piece in the Guardian.
It is important to respect that things in the world can kill you, it is also important to not let your fear drive you to action that is counter productive.
Perhaps, but not everything gives the same odds and stakes.
>I generally don't spend my days worrying about how I'm going to survive the next asteroid strike on the planet
If there were legitimate news of an asteroid en route to earth, you probably would.
And there are legitimate studies of antibiotics crapping out.
And even if you don't "spend your days worrying" about the latter (which I didn't suggest everybody should), doctors, biology researchers, drug companies etc, better DO worry.
> And even if you don't "spend your days worrying"
> about the latter (which I didn't suggest everybody
> should), doctors, biology researchers, drug companies
> etc, better DO worry.
I spend more time thinking about underfunded efforts that are trying to address hard problems. For example I believe the development of tornado/hurricane proof affordable housing is under funded. Every year we (as a community of tax payers) fund the reconstruction of housing and neighborhoods destroyed by tornadoes or hurricanes. We reconstruct these neighborhoods with the same types of housing that were destroyed before knowing that it will be destroyed again. That is GDP that if we invested some of it in research and development of weather proof housing we could save in future years. As the planet warms this is just going to get worse, and flooding is going to be a huge issue. One thing about warmer air is that it carries more water, more water, more rain, more rain, more flooding. That is a problem worth spending time on and investing in.
If you are genuinely worried, you can look up such info.
And given that you can use sugar to help heal wounds http://www.drwhitaker.com/sugar-on-wounds-for-healing/ what if you inject a sugar syrup into the bladder every time after you pee. Might work. Research is needed.
Stuff I have read indicates that antibiotic resisatant infections basically terraform the body, like an alligator making swamps in the American South. One of the things they typically do is making the body more acid. So, if you can reverse the acidity, the biofilm starts breaking up and the infection becomes treatable again.
Alligators don't make swamps - they live in swamps. They do dig "alligator holes" but that is hardly swamp-making.
Perhaps you're thinking of beavers, who _do_ very significantly modify waterways and lakes by building dams and nests?
https://bioventures.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/keystone-specie...
From what I have read, swamps tend to fill in over time and turn into solid land -- unless there are alligators.
Swamps abound in lands with no alligators whatsoever. In places where there are alligators, they can serve as an indicator species or keystone species for ecological studies. Certainly they alter their environment and create niches for other species, but they aren't necessary for swamps and they don't create swamps. Removing all the alligators from a swamp would not get rid of the swamp. Putting a bunch of alligators into an area will not result in a swamp being created in that area.
Yes, that is what I meant. They alter their environment.
I didn't intend to suggest that if you stick alligators in a non-swampy area, they create swamps by their very presence.
Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time. Here are a few things my son looked up for me just this morning because we were discussing the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator
In 'Habitat' we have:
"When [Alligators] construct alligator holes in the wetlands, they increase plant diversity and provide habitat for other animals during droughts."
"Further west, in Louisiana, heavy grazing by coypu and muskrat are causing severe damage to coastal wetlands. Large alligators feed extensively on coypu, and provide a vital ecological service by reducing coypu numbers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_alligator
At the very top of the page we have
"They play an important role as ecosystem engineers in wetland ecosystems through the creation of alligator holes, which provide both wet and dry habitats for other organisms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer
Down in "ecology and behavior" for American Alligator, we have
"Alligators modify wetland habitats, most dramatically in flat areas such as the Everglades, by constructing small ponds known as alligator holes. This behavior has qualified the American alligator to be considered a keystone species. Alligator holes retain water during the dry season and provide a refuge for aquatic organisms. Aquatic organisms that survive the dry season by seeking refuge in alligator holes are a source of future populations. The construction of nests along the periphery of alligator holes, as well as a buildup of soils during the excavation process, provide drier areas for other reptiles to nest and a place for plants that are intolerant of inundation to colonize. Alligator holes are an oasis during the Everglades dry season, so are consequently important foraging sites for other organisms. In the limestone depressions of cypress swamps, alligator holes tend to be large and deep, while those in marl prairies and rocky glades are usually small and shallow, and those in peat depressions of ridge and slough wetlands are more variable."
and
"Alligators also may control the long-term vegetation dynamics in wetlands by reducing the population of small mammals, particularly coypu, which may otherwise overgraze marsh vegetation. In this way, the vital ecological service they provide may be important in reducing rates of coastal wetland losses in Louisiana. They may provide a protection service for water birds nesting on islands in freshwater wetlands. Alligators prevent predatory mammals from reaching island-based rookeries and in return eat spilled food and birds that fall from their nests."
So basically, alligators dig holes, and this does a bunch of important things, and also they eat one of the main animals that would otherwise destroy wetlands.
Well, that's not what you originally said. Furthermore you're misinterpreting what you quote above too.
FWIW in the U.S. the word "coypu" is rarely used, we use the word "nutria" instead.
First of all, to say
Mz: "...like an alligator making swamps in the American South..."
is like saying that cows make cow pastures, or prairie dogs make grasslands, or oysters make the seabeds that they lie in - it is essentially incorrect.
I lived decades in the American South and have seen my share of alligators. I even raised one awhile and she did not terraform the backyard in any manner whatsoever. Mostly she crapped, irritated the dog, hissed and stood her ground until fed. To read someone speaking of alligators "making swamps in the American South" still has me laughing.
Mz: "Removing alligators from certain swamps would, in fact, significantly impact the swamp and make it much more likely to revert to solid land over time."
No. The swamp would be there with or w/o alligators. For example, Disney is removing alligators from their Disneyland parks. The swampy areas won't dry up as a result.
Swamps are consequences of geography and climate, not of alligators. There are plenty of swamps w/o alligators and alligators w/o swamps (e.g., lakes, rivers, etc.).
Humans are probably the main predators of nutria. Humans introduced nutria to the U.S. for their fur, in some instances, and to control various wild grasses, in others. Were the alligators were all gone, I have no doubt that other predators would easily pick up the slack.
Even if the nutria were allowed to reproduce unencumbered, they would not "destroy wetlands". Firstly the population would, as in the usual predator-prey models, boom then bust. Secondly, as I said earlier, the wetlands are a product not of biology, but of geography and climate. Of course biology diversifies the environment, but it doesn't create it. You could hit Louisiana with a giant neutron bomb, killing every living thing there and the wetlands would remain for eons.
Your pet alligator failing to terraform your backyard is not evidence that they do not have this impact in the wild. That is like saying "I have seen a single lion in the zoo. I can assure you, they don't hunt in groups."
Anyway, I am done with this discussion. I believe my observation is accurate. If you don't want to believe it, so be it.
There is, literally and figuratively, a world of difference between the real world and the world one reads about. One's grounding in real world knowledge is critical to one's understanding. Simply because something is on the Internet (or in a book) doesn't mean it's true. Getting out into the real world helps one understand, fills in gaps in one's knowledge, and makes the difference.
Earlier on I honestly thought that you were a child or at least a young student, since your knowledge seemed to be exclusively based on a rough interpretation of readings (which did not appear particularly authoritative). However since you state that you are a parent, I am somewhat disappointed to conclude that, in your life, you may have missed out on some experiential information that many, if not most, others share as common knowledge. I regret that I don't know how to communicate that to you. I would only hope that you encourage your child to get out into the world. My best wishes.
You however do not want to inject sugar or anything like that into the bladder.
P.S.
As a general rule of thumb you should probably avoid using "home remedies" from imadoctor.com sites.
Sugar is a good 'last resort' anti-biotic but it's certainly not the best option.
And as I read it, he means that for our continued existence.