Have antibiotics hindered our survivability

[Innovator]

We are all aware that over the last 60-70 years we have been able to survive once life ending infections due to the miracle that we call antibiotics. In Britain (where i am from) what this has achieved is a social care crisis. people living very long lives and needing alot of care with not enough money to pay for this care. Also a housing shortage. Are we right to prolong life before evolution would like us too?. My question is this, some bacteria that would kill one person eg a staph infection can live harmoniously on the skin of another person without concequence. We are all aware that bacteria adapt for survival. Are we preventing currently dangerous bacteria from evolving to end up living harmoniously within or on the skin of human beings by the use of antibiotics?. It seems that on certain people staph that live and thrive on our skin have found a way to exsist without killing the host? could other bacteria do this too without the interference of antibiotics? Our current health care system tests for and kills bateria found living harmlessly in the nose or mouth? is this the right thing to do?

Its clear bacteria can and will evolve and adapt to survive does it really want to kill us all? Or is it searching for the right people for evolution? As human beings we have an immune system that is able to learn and become resistant to certain afflictions given time could we adapt to become immune to bacteria? Is this why certain bacteria can live within and on our bodies but not kill us and yet kill someone else? Are they not yet immune? Has the bacteria on them not yet adapted to live harmoniously? 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Innovator

[Endy0816]

The issues associated with aging, are primarily past the point where people have had and raised offspring.

Evolution doesn't have any way to select against those traits. Generally lifespan is tied to how/where something lives. 

Should note carrying it on your skin doesn't mean you are perfectly immune. Should it make its way in or your own health change it can be just as lethal.

https://www.staph-infection-resources.com/info/carrier/

 

[Innovator]

Would it being up your nose or inside your mouth at the back of your throat not be inside you? My job allows me a tiny bit more knowledge than your standard person (not in any way an expert by any means). By being at the back of your throat it does have access to you blood supply and yet does not always invade. Why is this? Have certain people accuired immunity?  Also this is my question how are some people carriers? They are immune to the effects of this bacteria and yet they pass it on to someone else by coughing or sneezing and they then die or become very unwell. This is because the carriers body has adapted and become resistant, but its able to pass it on. In my opinion antibiotics are not the way forward they are merely money makers. Bacterias adaption to survive and to develop resistance to antibiotics and us as human beings building immunity to the bacteria are the way forward for the human race (we have millions of friendly bacteria within us that im sure in the past killed people) . The very website you provided backed up this theory. Just wanted to add that age in no way comes into my theory i do not see age as a factor in evolution some people die as young children and some as old people. Evolution is how humans adapt to their enviroment including bacterial factors over hundreds of years 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Innovator

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Innovator said:

... Are we right to prolong life before evolution would like us too?... 

Its clear bacteria can and will evolve and adapt to survive does it really want to kill us all? Or is it searching for the right people for evolution? ...

Neither evolution nor bacteria have desires. 

[Innovator]

Both humans and bacteria have a desire to survive, if evloution did not have the desire to survive how have we become human from apes?? How do bacteria develop resistance? From a desire to survive.i was really hoping for some meaningful contributions to this discussion hence me searching for a scientific forum. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Innovator

[zapatos]

This being a scientific forum you'll appreciate that precision is important. If you do insist that bacteria have 'desire', perhaps you can tell me where in bacteria desire originates. In humans that is in the brain. I'm unaware of a similarly functioning structure in bacteria.

[Innovator]

Would you like to explain how or why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? My understanding is this would be a determination to survive? Or an evolution?  Maybe desire is not the right word try one of the above. Rather than trying to belittle my wording id seriously appreciate your opinion on what ive said (no offence meant) but i genuinely would like knowledgeable opinion on the matter 

[Innovator]

Oh and id also love to know how our brain helped us evolve from apes when our brain also evolved over time to bring us from apes to humans. Making us more capable and knowledgeable. Ive seen your other harsh and argumentative responces to other threads and id really appreciate it if you stayed off mine zapatoes thanks. Id really appreciate some other constuctive opinions even if they differ from mine thanks 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Innovator

[Endy0816]

58 minutes ago, Innovator said:

Would you like to explain how or why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? My understanding is this would be a determination to survive? Or an evolution?

Evolution.

Some bacteria will posses genes that provide resistance to the antibiotic involved.

None of the bacteria are truly friendly. Some can crowd out worse ones, but any will take advantage if your immune system slips.

 

2 hours ago, Innovator said:

Would it being up your nose or inside your mouth at the back of your throat not be inside you? My job allows me a tiny bit more knowledge than your standard person (not in any way an expert by any means). By being at the back of your throat it does have access to you blood supply and yet does not always invade. Why is this? Have certain people accuired immunity?  Also this is my question how are some people carriers? They are immune to the effects of this bacteria and yet they pass it on to someone else by coughing or sneezing and they then die or become very unwell. This is because the carriers body has adapted and become resistant, but its able to pass it on. In my opinion antibiotics are not the way forward they are merely money makers. Bacterias adaption to survive and to develop resistance to antibiotics and us as human beings building immunity to the bacteria are the way forward for the human race (we have millions of friendly bacteria within us that im sure in the past killed people) . The very website you provided backed up this theory. Just wanted to add that age in no way comes into my theory i do not see age as a factor in evolution some people die as young children and some as old people. Evolution is how humans adapt to their enviroment including bacterial factors over hundreds of years 

What actions your body can take against infection is more limited there. Spit provides a real basic defense but obviously isn't perfect, especially as pathogens can arrive in bulk via food/drink.

Before antibiotics things were horrifyingly bad. We just need to more intelligently employ them. Limit the amount, improve variety and ensure a complete coarse of treatment is followed.

Should note, antibiotics are found in nature and lifeforms have employed them long before we got started. Leaf cutter ants in particular deserve a shout out here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leafcutter_ant#Waste_management

 

[Area54]

8 hours ago, Innovator said:

We are all aware that over the last 60-70 years we have been able to survive once life ending infections due to the miracle that we call antibiotics. In Britain (where i am from) what this has achieved is a social care crisis. people living very long lives and needing alot of care with not enough money to pay for this care. Also a housing shortage. Are we right to prolong life before evolution would like us too?. My question is this, some bacteria that would kill one person eg a staph infection can live harmoniously on the skin of another person without concequence. We are all aware that bacteria adapt for survival. Are we preventing currently dangerous bacteria from evolving to end up living harmoniously within or on the skin of human beings by the use of antibiotics?. It seems that on certain people staph that live and thrive on our skin have found a way to exsist without killing the host? could other bacteria do this too without the interference of antibiotics? Our current health care system tests for and kills bateria found living harmlessly in the nose or mouth? is this the right thing to do?

Its clear bacteria can and will evolve and adapt to survive does it really want to kill us all? Or is it searching for the right people for evolution? As human beings we have an immune system that is able to learn and become resistant to certain afflictions given time could we adapt to become immune to bacteria? Is this why certain bacteria can live within and on our bodies but not kill us and yet kill someone else? Are they not yet immune? Has the bacteria on them not yet adapted to live harmoniously? 

One can make an argument that the "social care crisis" is a product of fewer children to support aged parents, coupled with a disinterest in accepting that responsibility. That would be a social/cultural behavioural issue, independent of antibiotics. (And the housing shortage arises from political decisions, not e.coli.) Your implied solution carries with it the unpleasant odour of the eugenics movement. I wonder if you had considered that aspect of your thinking?

The notion that bacteria might be "searching for the right people for evolution" betrays a misunderstanding of the character of evolution. Perhaps you were speaking with a very strong metaphorical twist, but it did not read that way. Further, bacteria do not really want to do anything. Their genetics compels them to attempt to survive and replicate to the maximum degree. They have no "purpose", or "drive", or "desire", or "intent" beyond that.

6 hours ago, Innovator said:

 Rather than trying to belittle my wording id seriously appreciate your opinion on what ive said (no offence meant) but i genuinely would like knowledgeable opinion on the matter 

I do not believe Zapatos was belittlling your wording. He was offering guidance to help you improve your posts by encouraging you to be more precise in your choice of language. Would you really have preferred that he had not pointed out your inappropriate use of the word "desire", that he had - instead - left you ignorant of your error? You should be thanking him for his objective honesty, not sniping at him.

 

6 hours ago, Innovator said:

Oh and id also love to know how our brain helped us evolve from apes when our brain also evolved over time to bring us from apes to humans. Making us more capable and knowledgeable. Ive seen your other harsh and argumentative responces to other threads and id really appreciate it if you stayed off mine zapatoes thanks. Id really appreciate some other constuctive opinions even if they differ from mine thanks 

I've read, reread, then read again, then analysed the readings, deconstructed the sentences, reflected on the syntax and the vocabulary and had a final reading, and there is no way that anyone in this thread suggested that the brain helped us evolve from apes. (Although it is not difficult to make the argument that it did.) Zapatos was making the point that desire only becomes present in organisms with brains. (For all I know he may insist that true desire is only present in beings who are self aware.)

Science is by its very nature harsh and argumentative. I recommend you accept this. If you choose to ignore or avoid every scientist, or science junkie, who is direct and forthright, you will seriously compromise your desire to learn.

[Delta1212]

On 8/14/2017 at 9:26 PM, Innovator said:

Would you like to explain how or why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? My understanding is this would be a determination to survive? Or an evolution?  Maybe desire is not the right word try one of the above. Rather than trying to belittle my wording id seriously appreciate your opinion on what ive said (no offence meant) but i genuinely would like knowledgeable opinion on the matter 

The ones that aren't resistant die because the antibiotics killed them. Any that are left are resistant because they already had some resistance and that's why they are the ones that are left. Repeat this for multiple generations of bacteria and eventually you'll have a nice population of resistant bacteria because you killed off all of the non-resistant bacteria that we're competing with them for food and space. 

What the bacteria "want" has nothing to do with anything. Non-resistant bacteria didn't develop a resistance in order to better survive: They just died. Resistant bacteria didn't develop a resistance in order to survive. They had that resistance whether they had ever been exposed to the antibiotic or not. They just exploited an opening to reproduce more caused by a bunch of other bacteria being killed off.