Inspired by this humorous reply in a Reddit discussion about antibiotic resistant bacteria: Reddit - Dive into anything
wow, sometimes insomnia yields weird results, never been this early in a poll/thread that I recall. (not health and safety threatening chronic insomnia, just can’t sleep tonight insomnia)
I gotta go with fix the antibiotics issue first. Hard to deal with global warming, which might become a self correcting thing without antibiotics, if everyone or most of everyone is dead or dieing or huddling in their disease shelter and refusing to interact with the rest of the world. Global warming/climate change I think we can adapt to pretty well if need be.
Global Warming will make life increasingly unpleasant for most people ( and creatures ); fewer antibiotics will merely revert us to a recent past when there were no antibiotics.
Sucks to die from unavailable medicine; but worse for the majority to have temperatures and sea-levels rise in a ratchet effect.
I’ll fix global warming first because it’s the one that’ll be most difficult to fix in the real world.
We have a sizeable portion of the population who just don’t (doesn’t?) believe the anthropomorphic climate change story and will not cooperate / will not let their governments cooperate in efforts to fix it. Governments, companies and individuals have a financial interest in not fixing it.
For antibiotic resistance, mostly everybody agrees that it’s happening. Even those that don’t believe in evolution can witness it easily within their lifetimes. It’s a difficult problem, but governments, companies and NGOs at least all agree on it. Greed still plays a part at the individual and (some) company level, but there’s little economic upside to the crisis for most companies and for governments, especially in countries where the sick are the government’s responsibility.
Yup.
Looking forward to lots more lots more women dying after childbirth of puerpural fever, ghastly surgical infections, simple cuts and scratches leading to “blood poisoning”, and pathogens of all sorts gaining a revival because there’s increasingly less to stop them.
Nothing increasingly unpleasant about that, no sirreebob.
Curing resistance to antibiotics will only make global warming worse, so not such a great idea…
(Former microbiologist speaking)
Mankind evolved and thrived along with infectious disease. Many died but the species survived.
Global warming could well be a disaster of existential impact for our civilization, if not our species.
I went with antibiotic resistance. Pure selfishness, I won’t live long enough to see the worst effects of Global Warming. I could get hit with a resistant infection tomorrow though.
Speaking of diseases. That, of course, is worrisome if we don’t all starve to death first. I’d fix the climate first.
I would rather we leave this place better than we found it, but that is not going to happen. We should do something to mitigate the disaster we have been, though.
Climates change and always have, I’m old, I live well inland in a semi-northern area, and I have no known offspring -------- i9f I can’t have both, give me the good drugs.
Antibiotic resistance is self-imposed.
It’s entirely feasible to develop new antibiotics. There are hundreds of promising candidates. It’s a straightforward task to find a new one - bacteria are so enormously different from eukaryotic cells there are many thousands of things to target.
The reason resistance is growing is because there are zero new antibiotics in the pipeline. This is because the model of R&D for developing new drugs is as follows :
a. Private drug companies must risk more than a billion dollars paying for clinical trials and FDA approval
b. No matter the value of the drug, once they go through this process, if they get through it (there are many arbitrary and capricious delays by the FDA killing thousands of patients), they get a time limited monopoly of the same number of years. Whether the drug cures a type of cancer or reduces hemorrhoid outbreaks.
The whole process is badly broken and effectively responsible for thousands, probably millions of deaths. It incentivizes the drug companies to overcharge for their products and to funnel most of the profits into dividends, advertising, and administrative salaries and bonuses - the actual drug development budget is less than 50% of their revenue. It also incentivizes developing drugs for various lucrative market niches that may not have any effect on patient lifespans.
In the specific case of antibiotics, since there are many generics already available that still work most of the time, there’s no market niche for a new one. Only a small fraction of patients will get a completely drug resistant infection and die - and a drug company can’t collect a million dollars for saving that patient’s life, so they are not going to do it.
I voted “see results” because there was no “Don’t know” option.
I think it’s a tougher question than it seems on its face. Antibiotic resistance is probably going to cause more death and suffering. But global warming contains some unknowns; perhaps positive feedback will cause a much bigger catastrophe than most forecasts?
So my opinion keeps hopping between the two.
Actually I think in the long run Global Climate Change will probably lead to more deaths and sufferings. As coastal cities start getting devestated by rising waters & harsher storms and crop failures become more common tied to droughts it will increase unrest and the number of refugees. Then as it really gets bad, it will lead to more small wars that could turn into major wars.
Mijin, we could skip most wasteful FDA paperwork steps and rush an emergency new antibiotic into production in probably 1-2 years. There are many candidates. There would have to be enough people dying to put enough pressure on the government to do this. (the government would have to both fund this effort and also force the FDA to stop wasting time for this drug)
So there will not be mass deaths of first world residents to antibiotic resistance.
There’s no rush fix to the climate. Even something like an orbital sunshade or injecting gas to block sunlight would take years to develop the technology from the very rough plans we have today, and a vast pile of infrastructure to actually do it.
All it takes to make a new antibiotic is to take a substance from the lab (a small molecule, a synthetic antibody, etc) that works and we have a rational reason to think won’t interfere with other human metabolic functions. And doesn’t kill rats and monkeys. Prove it doesn’t kill humans with a rushed clinical trial, or at least not quickly, and then use it in extreme cases. (even if it happens to cause some long term illness, that’s better than dying right now from the infection, right?). We have the physical infrastructure to do all this today, we just lack the political will because doing this will kill some patients.
Global warming. Both are problems humanity has inflicted on itself. But antibiotic resistance will only kill us. At least the rest of the living world would have a chance to survive that disaster.
Global warming. I think it’s hard to fix for reasons that include but go way beyond the technical, whereas it’s easier to imagine some big discovery that fixes antibiotic resistance all at once. Not likely, but less unlikely.
Global warming. I think we have a much better chance of fixing antibiotic resistance absent magic.
And this is why we should solve Global Warming. The problems you relate with regards to new drugs are particular to the US, there’s no reason other countries couldn’t decide to do their own research, and produce their own drugs, without worrying about meeting the over-the-top standards the FDA uses.
With Global Warming, however, we’d need every country in the world to agree to implement a plan, and if one major player like the US decides to not go along, the whole plan may be for naught.
The reply about reducing meat consumption is spot on; it address both.