4 ms·

You are completely right in that bacteria don't have the ability to "want" things since they don't have any kind of brain. However, desire is a useful way for t

You are completely right in that bacteria don't have the ability to "want" things since they don't have any kind of brain. However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room" or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance"

baddox 13y ago
Yes, the talk of desire is clearly personification that's not meant to be taken literally.
- thomasz 13y ago
  He's dumbing it down a little bit for the audience, what a crime!
- narrator 13y ago
  "Desire" implies that the bacteria is acting purposefully and planning ahead. This isn't what's happening unless you attribute the bacteria's activity to some sort of intelligence. On the contrary, we eliminated smallpox which was one of the most devastating diseases in history so this fatalism is basically disproved. More depressingly, we've also made extinct thousands of species who have not evolved to resist us.
  - mixmastamyk 13y ago
    Also, individuals don't evolve, populations do. So there is no "wanting" whether you've got a brain that can or not.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Ummmm bacteria do. See horizontal gene transfer.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    we eliminated smallpox which was one of the most devastating diseases in history so this fatalism is basically disproved Smallpox was not eliminated with antibiotics, and nor was polio. Both are viruses, and both were eliminated with vaccines.
    - Peaker 13y ago
      That comment digressed to discuss whether or not evolution plans ahead and "eventually discovers ways to overcome" as implied by the OP. Keep up with the topic :)
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    The bacteria is acting purposefully I guess in the same sense that a hammer acts purposefully to drive down a nail. I don't know if that's a correct usage of language or not but it's essentially the same thing. But it is correct to say the hammer's purpose is to drive down the nail, and the bacteria's purpose is to survive and reproduce successfully. So what if a species goes extinct? That doesn't mean it can't evolve, only that it didn't adapt quickly enough.
- FkZ 13y ago
  Inability to understand figurative language seems a common malady on certain parts of the internet.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    It's not an inability to understand you're seeing, it's a rejection of it because it misleads people. Pendants attack such language precisely because it's misleading without cause. There's no reason to personify random processes and doing so actively misleads people.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      There is no "active misleading." On the contrary, the usage of the word "desire" in this context aids layman understanding of the subject.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        That's your opinion, not mine; however it's exactly talk like this that has led to most laymen not understanding evolution. They don't get that it's being dumbed down for them and that's not their fault, it's the fault of people who casually anthropomorphize things because they wrongly think it helps to clarify; it does not. Understanding comes from truth, not casual simplifying lies.
        baddox 13y ago
        You place a large hindrance on discussion if you require every discussion that mentions natural selection to give an entire introductory lesson on evolution. It's a ridiculous notion, especially when there is unlikely to be any misconceptions taken from this article. The purpose of the article was to explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and how our use of antibiotics has led to this, and it does a fine job of that even if some uneducated people still can't describe the modern evolutnary synthesis.
        13y ago
gnaritas 13y ago
> However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. No it isn't, it's misleading. > It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room" Equally unnecessarily misleading. Water doesn't want anything, and before you claim people understand that let me tell you, they don't. It's a common belief that water has memory, there's an entire industry based on the concept and people fall for it. Walk into any grocery store and there are shelves of very expensive little bottles of water (homeopathy) being sold as cures for all kinds of things, it's disgusting. > or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance" Also unnecessarily misleading. Such talk may be fine among experts who "get" that's it's not accurate, but when talking to general public one should speak accurately, not loosely and "hope" they get it because the reality is many if not most don't and take what you say quite literally.
- kamaal 13y ago
  This is basically debating semantics. Bacteria don't 'want' anything in a purely technical sense. But they will eventually develop/are developing resistance to antibiotics anyway. You seem to be stuck in debating about the right sentences to describe that. That should be least of our worries.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    Semantics matter, communication is not possible without agreement on the meaning of words. And the OP made the argument, not me, I'm simply agreeing with his point that's it's wrong to personify evolution, it's why so many people don't understand it.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      It's far worse than that. Not on;y is it not possible to have semantic communication without a general agreement on the meaning of words, but at the same time perfect agreement is impossible. This is generally understood (and has been understood for a hundred years) to be one of the causes of linguistic drift. Humans aren't computers.

baddox 13y ago

Yes, the talk of desire is clearly personification that's not meant to be taken literally.

thomasz 13y ago
He's dumbing it down a little bit for the audience, what a crime!
narrator 13y ago
"Desire" implies that the bacteria is acting purposefully and planning ahead. This isn't what's happening unless you attribute the bacteria's activity to some sort of intelligence. On the contrary, we eliminated smallpox which was one of the most devastating diseases in history so this fatalism is basically disproved. More depressingly, we've also made extinct thousands of species who have not evolved to resist us.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Also, individuals don't evolve, populations do. So there is no "wanting" whether you've got a brain that can or not.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Ummmm bacteria do. See horizontal gene transfer.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  we eliminated smallpox which was one of the most devastating diseases in history so this fatalism is basically disproved Smallpox was not eliminated with antibiotics, and nor was polio. Both are viruses, and both were eliminated with vaccines.
  - Peaker 13y ago
    That comment digressed to discuss whether or not evolution plans ahead and "eventually discovers ways to overcome" as implied by the OP. Keep up with the topic :)
- Houshalter 13y ago
  The bacteria is acting purposefully I guess in the same sense that a hammer acts purposefully to drive down a nail. I don't know if that's a correct usage of language or not but it's essentially the same thing. But it is correct to say the hammer's purpose is to drive down the nail, and the bacteria's purpose is to survive and reproduce successfully. So what if a species goes extinct? That doesn't mean it can't evolve, only that it didn't adapt quickly enough.
FkZ 13y ago
Inability to understand figurative language seems a common malady on certain parts of the internet.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  It's not an inability to understand you're seeing, it's a rejection of it because it misleads people. Pendants attack such language precisely because it's misleading without cause. There's no reason to personify random processes and doing so actively misleads people.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    There is no "active misleading." On the contrary, the usage of the word "desire" in this context aids layman understanding of the subject.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      That's your opinion, not mine; however it's exactly talk like this that has led to most laymen not understanding evolution. They don't get that it's being dumbed down for them and that's not their fault, it's the fault of people who casually anthropomorphize things because they wrongly think it helps to clarify; it does not. Understanding comes from truth, not casual simplifying lies.
      - baddox 13y ago
        You place a large hindrance on discussion if you require every discussion that mentions natural selection to give an entire introductory lesson on evolution. It's a ridiculous notion, especially when there is unlikely to be any misconceptions taken from this article. The purpose of the article was to explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and how our use of antibiotics has led to this, and it does a fine job of that even if some uneducated people still can't describe the modern evolutnary synthesis.
        13y ago

gnaritas 13y ago

> However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. No it isn't, it's misleading. > It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room" Equally unnecessarily misleading. Water doesn't want anything, and before you claim people understand that let me tell you, they don't. It's a common belief that water has memory, there's an entire industry based on the concept and people fall for it. Walk into any grocery store and there are shelves of very expensive little bottles of water (homeopathy) being sold as cures for all kinds of things, it's disgusting. > or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance" Also unnecessarily misleading. Such talk may be fine among experts who "get" that's it's not accurate, but when talking to general public one should speak accurately, not loosely and "hope" they get it because the reality is many if not most don't and take what you say quite literally.

kamaal 13y ago
This is basically debating semantics. Bacteria don't 'want' anything in a purely technical sense. But they will eventually develop/are developing resistance to antibiotics anyway. You seem to be stuck in debating about the right sentences to describe that. That should be least of our worries.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  Semantics matter, communication is not possible without agreement on the meaning of words. And the OP made the argument, not me, I'm simply agreeing with his point that's it's wrong to personify evolution, it's why so many people don't understand it.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    It's far worse than that. Not on;y is it not possible to have semantic communication without a general agreement on the meaning of words, but at the same time perfect agreement is impossible. This is generally understood (and has been understood for a hundred years) to be one of the causes of linguistic drift. Humans aren't computers.