Are we destined to enter a "post-antibiotic" era?

The linked article refers to arguments that if things keep going the way they are, we’ll eventually enter an era in which antibiotics will be irrelevant because there will be too many bugs that are completely anti-biotic resistant. I take it the author is advocating for a slowdown in the use of antibiotics for various non-medicine related purposes (and some medicine-related ones as well).

One question I have is–isn’t it inevitable that the bugs will eventually get completely resistant no matter how much we slow down antibiotics use? They’ll still develop defenses either way–just maybe more slowly.

Another question, though, is what does it mean for an organism to be “completely antibiotic resistant”? Does the term antibiotic mean something other than just “anything that kills microorganisms without killing their host” or something like that? Because if that’s what it means, surely it will always be possible to design a drug that will do just that. They’ll be resistant to all current antibiotics, but is it really reasonable to think they’d be resistant to all possible antibiotics? I am probably speaking from a position of considerable ignorance here…

IANAMD, but I think the problem is that you want something that kills germs without causing major side-effects (or killing) the patient. As germs get more and more resistant it’s going to get harder and hard to find antibiotics that do one without the other.

We may run out of simple chemical compounds that kill infectious bacteria but not human cells; I think we’ll eventually have to develop more sophisticated biotechnology, like custom-engineered bacteriophages, artificial antibodies, and so forth.

Read somewhere that antibiotic research really slowed down in the 60s and that if the current crop becomes ineffective it will spur pharmaceutical companies to focus more on this area and design new antibiotics that nothing is resistant to yet. I’m not a doctor or pharmacist, nor have I studied much in this area, so take it for what it’s worth.

Antibiotics are over-rated anyway. Humanity’s survived without them perfectly fine for 100,000 years, despite bad hygiene, poor diet, and voodoo medicine. It’s not like every cut and scratch was a guaranteed death sentence before the 20th Century.

No, but it’s awfully nice to have treatment for even those ailments which aren’t guaranteed death sentences which would wipe out the human race…

In some areas, doctors are going back to older antibiotics because they remain effective, thanks to not being in recent use, due to bacterial resistance to newer drugs.

Having the antibiotic resistance genes comes with a cost for the bug. In an environment without antibiotics it will be selected against. Eliminating or reducing the use of antibiotics will cause the population of antibiotic-resistant bugs to be reduced.

That said, there’s an antibiotic panic two or three times a year. Have been so for about as long as I can remember.

Previous thread on this topic.

To quote a poster in that thread;

The post you quoted was contradicted by a few medical professionals just a few posts later, and the poster never returned to the thread to provide any requested cites or additional rationale for their opinion. I’m not sure that serves as much of a cite in this thread.

Are you saying that you agree with it and if so why?

They actually don’t seem to be directly contradicting each other. (I’m reading Hirka’s post in that thread.) They seem to be agreed that there won’t be a “post-antibiotic age,” Blake because we’ll develop new ones when the market demands it, Hirka because we can cycle between different antibiotics over the generations.