Bacterial advances: resistance is inevitable

[pellicle]

Hi

Ah kind of but I think that's just us anthropomorphising the earth. I think it's just a bunch of individual species working in their own best interest, usually not even consciously, either hostile or indifferent to others.

Well I can see how you may suspect that its anthropomorphising, but that's just language of description at work. You could equally say that plants will try to get their roots into a sewer system to get at water, which is exactly the same sort of metaphor. The tree does not consciously contemplate and guide. It is none the less quite true that given opportunity trees roots will invade sewers and clog them.

my point is that if we do not plan and alter our methods then our methods will create changes to make the residual environment less opportunity rich for us, which will result (as it has in the past) in environmental pressure to change. That change can be drastic.

If we (as a species) are intelligent then I'd be proposing we change more. I practice what I preach too. I am sure that I consume far less than anyone in my region, use less energy recycle more stuff (effectively) and waste less. My focus has been on water in my ex-academic life, but I cover all facets that I can in my private life.

I don't believe there is a consciousness to nature or the earth.

Agreed, I do not subscribe to the Gaia idea. It is only mythology to explain better behaviour to the simple and stupid. There is however an interconnectedness which can be (and is studied). Ecology is one such branch of science.

I hold hope that humanity can change, but if you study the indicators then its clear we're in for a rough ride before we reach any equilibrium.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

We shouldn't take for granted all the things that are available to us today:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/23/antibiotic-resistant-diseases-apocalyptic-threat


Here is a good TED talk on the subject: https://www.ted.com/talks/maryn_mck...ics_don_t_work_any_more?language=en#t-1003865

indeed. Many of the operations we take for granted today would have been inconceivable 100 years ago simply because of the biotic risk. Bullet wounds killed from gangrene after many surgeries and amputations, now most exterior wounds are not "likely death".

I myself remain on antibiotics because everyone medical suspects that its possible the bacteria that got into my body last OHS are still there. Perhaps just walled off in a small scar tissue area. If they are behind my sternum (they certainly were) then if they were to grow again it would be an operation to swap my prosthesis and my aortic graft. That would be highly undesirable and very likely to transform me from healthy and active to frail and perhaps simply dead.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I would suggest even that almost gives them too much credit. They aren't working in their own best interest. The ones that happen to have genetic resistance to current antibiotics survive to procreate.

and this is the point. The cycle of generation and thus recasting the genetic dice is much shorter for them than us.

The ones that don't, die. When all we have left are bacteria resistant to meds, then that is the remaining population that is procreating. Evolution at its finest. No thought. No work. Just living long enough to procreate.

correct ... and this is how evolution occurs. What takes hundreds of years in human evolutions due to our reproduction rate may take weeks for bacteria.

If I was born 50 years earlier, I wouldn't have survived to procreate. Having been born when I was, I have lived to have five wonderful children. My messed up genes would have been removed from the pool without intervention.

exactly, a point I have made about myself since the 80's (although I don't have children). It is our ability to work outside of this and alter the environment to suit us that gives us advantages.

Also don't be so quick to make a judgement of what are "mixed up genes" as what may seem like a disadvantage in some views of reality becomes an advantage in others. My go to example of this in human populations is "sicle cell anemia". Normally its something which is not any sort of advantage. Unless you live in a place with malaria.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0428123931.htm

A new article is likely to help solve one of the long-standing mysteries of biomedicine. In a study that challenges currently held views, researchers unravel the molecular mechanism whereby sickle cell hemoglobin confers a survival advantage against malaria, the disease caused by Plasmodium infection. These findings open the way to new therapeutic interventions against malaria, a disease that continues to inflict tremendous medical, social and economic burdens to a large proportion of the human population.

 

[almost_hectic]

Ah kind of but I think that's just us anthropomorphising the earth. I think it's just a bunch of individual species working in their own best interest, usually not even consciously, either hostile or indifferent to others. I don't believe there is a consciousness to nature or the earth.
All I can do is educate myself and possibly try to change things for the better, part of the solution as they say, but it'll end when it ends and I doubt I'll be able to change it so....

No I didn't mean that in a literal sense of course, just as a metaphor. There's no conscious will of course. Every species is at risk from bacterial infection. But of course as humans we no longer live in a natural environment and while the smartest, we're obviously a pretty fragile creature. So many living things survive in nature without the intervention of modern chemistry. We as humans could just as easily die off and the rest of the planet would do very well without us and only continue to survive, adapt and evolve.

 

[cldlhd]

No I didn't mean that in a literal sense of course, just as a metaphor. There's no conscious will of course. Every species is at risk from bacterial infection. But of course as humans we no longer live in a natural environment and while the smartest, we're obviously a pretty fragile creature. So many living things survive in nature without the intervention of modern chemistry. We as humans could just as easily die off and the rest of the planet would do very well without us and only continue to survive, adapt and evolve.

Ok , wasn't sure as people think all kinds of things. I think humans would survive as a species without modern chemistry, there would just be a lot less of us. I don't think the BAV gene(s) has been "weeded" out of the gene pool because left untreated it doesn't kill everyone who has it and those it would kill, but doesn't due to inntervention-yee ha for me- it usually doesn't kill em off until well into or after the "breeding" years.

 

[neil]

it is worrying but we still live in a much better place medical wise than we ever have,

 

[pellicle]

Hi

it is worrying but we still live in a much better place medical wise than we ever have,

agreed. In fact it may just drive changes in how to treat valvular disease in the future. It may provide (for instance) a pressure to develop safer and better TAVI.

One thing for sure, is that humans who need solutions develop them

 

[Nocturne]

Terrible things can happen. On the other hand, regarding super-resistant bacteria -- for the entirety of humanity's existence, we have proven again and again that it is a VERY BAD THING for a life form to be dangerous, or even perceived as dangerous, to humans. Sure, a tiger can kill an unarmed man, and a virus can wipe out most of a city, but ultimately, things tend not to go well for those organisms that can threaten us.