3 ms·

The whole enterprise was/is bound for eventual failure unless perhaps you have nano particle drones that hunt for bacteria or perhaps a genetically engineered i

by x5n1 11y ago

The whole enterprise was/is bound for eventual failure unless perhaps you have nano particle drones that hunt for bacteria or perhaps a genetically engineered immune system to do the same, but I think bacteria will be up to the challenge of dealing with those too. You are dealing with survivors that have been around for over a billion years. And all your hubris lasted you less than 100 years. If you think about it with any sort of intelligence or foresight, you see that this is a failed enterprise as it is. Drugs for everyone does not work, because that means that you are making the war against trillions of individual bacteria cells. Of coarse they will figure out a cure for your "anti-biotic", they are searching for it with all that they got. Medical dark ages are inevitable. Bacteria are survivors just like we are survivors.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Bacteria may be survivors, but they don't have brains. We do. We've shown time and again that we can invent in a day what takes evolution millions of years. It's not unreasonable to expect we'll succeed, because we can adapt faster than they do. It's a matter of resource focus and not doing stupid things like feeding animals with antibiotics en masse.
- x5n1 11y ago
  > but they don't have brains Does not mean that they are not highly intelligent, especially in their home environment which we can only observe through a microscope. At the end of the day there is more of them in us than pretty much what is us... they have got lots of places to hide. > We've shown time and again that we can invent in a day what takes evolution millions of years. Some citation needed. Just because we extracted chemicals that have been used for millions of years and invented by yet other living organisms that had been battling them for millions of years does not mean we invented a damn thing. And we destroyed those discoveries in 10s of years. > It's not unreasonable to expect we'll succeed Succeed at what? Destroying all pathogenic bacteria all the time? We can't even do it some of the time currently. In the end the red queen will win... and this temporary war will lead to the same truce that's been going on since the dawn of life.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > Does not mean that they are not highly intelligent, especially in their home environment which we can only observe through a microscope. At the end of the day there is more of them in us than pretty much what is us... they have got lots of places to hide. [citation needed]. There's nothing suggesting individual bacteria are anything more than dumb machines that react to external stimuli - or that as a group they do anything more than gradient search through DNA space. > Some citation needed. Just because we extracted chemicals that have been used for millions of years and invented by yet other living organisms that had been battling them for millions of years does not mean we invented a damn thing. And we destroyed those discoveries in 10s of years. I'm not talking about extracting chemicals. I'm talking about flying, Moon landings and popcorn. Keep in mind we went from nothing to genetic engineering in few thousand years, and arguably all the time but last few centuries were essentially not relevant to those advancements. > Succeed at what? Succeed at staying on top of damage done by pathogens, eventually advancing to the point we won't have to keep actively pushing that technology forward. Sure, bacteria will try to gradient-search around whatever we throw at them, but we don't have to make it easy for them. "Nano particle drones" are definitely not out of the question in the future, given that bacteria themselves are nothing more than dumb "nano particle drones".

by x5n1 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Bacteria may be survivors, but they don't have brains. We do. We've shown time and again that we can invent in a day what takes evolution millions of years. It's not unreasonable to expect we'll succeed, because we can adapt faster than they do. It's a matter of resource focus and not doing stupid things like feeding animals with antibiotics en masse.

x5n1 11y ago
> but they don't have brains Does not mean that they are not highly intelligent, especially in their home environment which we can only observe through a microscope. At the end of the day there is more of them in us than pretty much what is us... they have got lots of places to hide. > We've shown time and again that we can invent in a day what takes evolution millions of years. Some citation needed. Just because we extracted chemicals that have been used for millions of years and invented by yet other living organisms that had been battling them for millions of years does not mean we invented a damn thing. And we destroyed those discoveries in 10s of years. > It's not unreasonable to expect we'll succeed Succeed at what? Destroying all pathogenic bacteria all the time? We can't even do it some of the time currently. In the end the red queen will win... and this temporary war will lead to the same truce that's been going on since the dawn of life.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Does not mean that they are not highly intelligent, especially in their home environment which we can only observe through a microscope. At the end of the day there is more of them in us than pretty much what is us... they have got lots of places to hide. [citation needed]. There's nothing suggesting individual bacteria are anything more than dumb machines that react to external stimuli - or that as a group they do anything more than gradient search through DNA space. > Some citation needed. Just because we extracted chemicals that have been used for millions of years and invented by yet other living organisms that had been battling them for millions of years does not mean we invented a damn thing. And we destroyed those discoveries in 10s of years. I'm not talking about extracting chemicals. I'm talking about flying, Moon landings and popcorn. Keep in mind we went from nothing to genetic engineering in few thousand years, and arguably all the time but last few centuries were essentially not relevant to those advancements. > Succeed at what? Succeed at staying on top of damage done by pathogens, eventually advancing to the point we won't have to keep actively pushing that technology forward. Sure, bacteria will try to gradient-search around whatever we throw at them, but we don't have to make it easy for them. "Nano particle drones" are definitely not out of the question in the future, given that bacteria themselves are nothing more than dumb "nano particle drones".