> they’d be an entirely different organism. Yeah, they'd be archaea instead of bacteria, which is a huge taxonomic leap, but they'd probably make you just as s

> they’d be an entirely different organism. Yeah, they'd be archaea instead of bacteria, which is a huge taxonomic leap, but they'd probably make you just as sick as before. The naming hierarchies of taxonomy are somewhat justified within eukarya because we have family trees, but when you only have one parent and get your genetic diversity via horizontal gene transfer with your peers, taxonomy is just the words of silly humans. I wouldn't be surprised if mutations happen that take populations across that boundary all the time. It happened at least once, what are the odds of it happening only once? ----- New-cell-wall technology aside, I think there are other reasons to avoid frequently creating unnecessary sterile zones. At those zones' boundaries you're creating situations that favor rapid recolonization, neighbors-be-damned, potentially at the expense of equilibria-seeking behavior. Fewer Ghandis more Ghengis Khans. There's a great radio-lab podcast (titled Argentine Invasion) which describes how conditions like these (regarding a floodplain, in this case) lead to the evolution of an especially ruthless species of ant. It seems likely to me that you'd see the same thing in bacteria populations that are frequently partially obliterated.