[HN Gopher] New antibiotic that kills drug-resistant bacteria fo...
___________________________________________________________________
New antibiotic that kills drug-resistant bacteria found in
technician's garden
Author : ascorbic
Score : 344 points
Date : 2025-03-31 19:30 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| Centigonal wrote:
| There's some interesting history around scientists collecting
| soil samples from across the world to look for novel antibiotics.
|
| I learned about it through this video, but there's a lot to
| explore beyond this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ig6ktJGTWk
| nugzbunny wrote:
| Wasn't this how penicillin was found? On some cantaloupe sent in
| by an average joe?
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Not quite. Alexander Fleming was growing cultures of staph
| bacteria, went away for some time, and when he came back, found
| one petri dish had been contaminated with fungus, and that the
| fungus inhibited the growth of the bacteria. It seems to be
| unclear where the contamination came from, but the fungus
| itself was already known to science at the time.
| ggm wrote:
| The cantaloupe is how the US production process in vats got a
| massive efficiency kick because the mould on the cantaloupe
| released significantly more penicillin than the prior one. But,
| this was after the initial discovery.
|
| It's in "Florey: The Man Who Made Penicillin" by Lennard Bickel
| logifail wrote:
| In the 1960s a Canadian research expedition collected soil
| samples from Easter Island which led to the discovery of
| rapamycin (aka sirolimus).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirolimus
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9634974/
|
| (Full disclosure - spent my PhD working with macrolides including
| this one. It's an amazing origin story for a compound...)
| hentrep wrote:
| The discovery of rapamycin is such a fascinating story.
| Radiolab covered this a few years back - I encourage everyone
| to give it a listen: https://radiolab.org/podcast/dirty-drug-
| and-ice-cream-tub
| noduerme wrote:
| Naive question here: Why can't new antibiotics be developed by
| just spraying fields of mushrooms or petri dishes full of fungi
| with antibiotic resistant bacteria and seeing which ones come up
| with novel ways to fight them?
| CarRamrod wrote:
| Birds, mostly
| coryrc wrote:
| Because you'll end up finding bacteriophages and wonder why
| we're wasting so many lives and much money on antibiotics.
|
| Antibiotics are lazy. Sure, some people have to die, but at
| least you didn't have to spend any time taking samples of the
| actual infection.
| yyyk wrote:
| Bacteriophages suck. What some people never tell you is that
| the body treats phages as invaders and can very effectively
| get rid of them, they are not adapted to the human
| environment. These are only good for local treatments,
| sometimes...
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| that seems like a good thing. they only infect bacteria,
| not humans
|
| phages are found in large quantities in mucus, where they
| seemingly contribute to the barrier function of mucus by
| preying on any bacteria that try go cross
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23690590/
|
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508355112
|
| https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.01984-19
|
| this might be adaptable for therapeutics
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48560-2
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-07269-0
| drob518 wrote:
| Well, you actually want the body to clear things. That's
| not a problem, it's a feature. If the phage is able to
| target the bacteria before it is fully cleared, that's all
| you need. Humans have been injected with phages and it has
| been shown to work. The Soviets actually did a lot of
| research on it, IIRC. The practical issue that is really
| challenging for broad phage therapy adoption is that phages
| are very specific to the bacteria they target. So, you
| can't just get injected with any old phage and expect it to
| work. Instead, you need to catalog all the phages you find
| in a database and search for one that can target the
| specific bacteria the patient has been infected with.
| Phages are simply viruses that target bacteria. You're
| awash in them all the time.
| yyyk wrote:
| It's a good thing, unless the body clears off the phage
| first, leading to both reduced effectiveness and the body
| wasting immune resources. It does work locally, and one
| can probably engineer it today to work even better. But
| it seems to be destined to be relegated to a secondary
| cure. We seem to be able to keep finding new antibiotics
| with benefits like 'massive safety testing' or 'we know
| exactly how they work', or 'very easy to administer'.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >you need to catalog all the phages you find in a
| database and search for one that can target the specific
| bacteria the patient has been infected with.
|
| Most of the time the doctor doesn't know the exact
| pathogen you are infected with. He'll suspect a bacterian
| infection of some kind and prescribe a wide range
| antibiotic.
|
| Doing what you suggest will require changing the way we
| do medicine. Which might not be a bad thing but requires
| some determination.
| nomadpenguin wrote:
| This is correct, it's called empiric treatment. If a
| patient comes in with altered mental status and neck
| rigidity, you don't have time to take a lumbar puncture
| and culture bacteria. I don't know anything about phage
| treatment, but from what the other commenter said, it
| seems like then you'd have to do some sort of PCR test as
| well. You simply don't have time for any of that -- your
| only choice is to blast them with vancomycin +
| ceftriaxone.
| coryrc wrote:
| Yeah, which is why we need to stop using antibiotics for
| cases where we could use phage treatment.
| rscho wrote:
| Thank you so much for volunteering!
| noduerme wrote:
| Ok, another naive question: Not suggesting we just eat a
| bunch of bacteriophages, but why wouldn't studying phage
| mechanisms / proteins for killing bacteria be equally useful?
| drob518 wrote:
| This is being studied. Phage research is active.
| coryrc wrote:
| We need to implement it! Steffanie Strathdee could save
| her husband's life because she was the director of UC San
| Diego's Global Health Institute. "Regular" people deserve
| to live too.
|
| https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/navy-
| pha...
| kelnos wrote:
| I'm sure people _are_ studying them. But as GP said,
| antibiotic are lazy. A doctor would much rather prescribe
| an antibiotic than do the work to match the specific
| bacterial infection with the particular phage to deal with
| it.
|
| And since antibiotics still work (for now), there's not all
| that much money in phage research. If we do get to the
| point where we "run out" of antibiotics due to bacterial
| resistance, I imagine phage research will become a lot more
| attractive as a destination for research funding.
| coryrc wrote:
| They're viruses, so they work by infecting bacteria and
| making the bacteria create more of itself.
|
| Antibiotics are found by isolating a compound some i.e.
| fungi naturally produces. We figure out how to produce the
| compound and don't fill people with fungi to produce it.
| Bacteriophages are already the analogy to the compound
| itself.
|
| So we should be investing heavily in creating and
| distributing all variety of bacteriophage for all our
| common bacterial infections. 20k deaths/year from MRSA in
| the USA alone, 120k infections/year in USA and many of the
| survivors are left with life-long complications.
| drob518 wrote:
| To expand on what you wrote, the challenge with phages is
| that they're highly specific to certain bacteria, in the same
| way that some viruses target gorillas and some target humans.
| We have yet to find broad spectrum phages. While humans have
| been saved from bacteria by phages, it requires identifying
| the bacteria strain, looking up appropriate phage that can
| target that bacteria, cultivating a dose of the phage, etc.
| So, yea, phages are highly effective, but there are practical
| challenges. As you say, antibiotics are lazy.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The problem is, phages are recognized by your immune system
| too. They're effectively single-shot, last ditch efforts.
| b3lvedere wrote:
| I'm absolutely not educated in the world of antibiotics, but i
| can imagine it might be very difficult to monitor this kind of
| complex behaviour in a (hopefuly) very secured controlled
| environment.
| looperhacks wrote:
| Can't answer this particular question. But I remember hearing
| that developing new antibiotics is not very profitable - To
| minimize resistance building against new antibiotics, old
| antibiotics will be used until they are no longer working. So
| new antibiotics just won't sell that much for now.
| xoxosc wrote:
| Same goes for chemo therapy. There are many chemo therapies
| from 60s still being used due to the fact their patent is
| still owned by certain oligarchy.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _There are many chemo therapies from 60s still being used
| due to the fact their patent is still owned by certain
| oligarchy._
|
| They must be making _some_ novel improvements, though.
| Those original patents from the '60s are long expired by
| now.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| They probably are.
|
| It's like the claim that pharma had tripled the price of
| a 100 year old drug(insulin) that the inventors had sold
| for only $1 and were now charging $450 a month for it.
|
| Then you dig into the claims and you find out that, the
| original insulin is still available, it's new
| formulations that have the higher cost.
|
| >Until now, the only so-called "Walmart insulin" you
| could get for a lower price (roughly $25 to $35 per vial)
| was the older, human versions of insulin -- R (or
| Regular) insulin, N (which is Novolin, aka NPH insulin);
| and a 70/30 mix of the two other types. Those
| formulations have been around since the early 1980s, but
| they work much differently and are seen as much less
| reliable than the analog insulins that first started
| appearing in the later 1990s.
| https://www.healthline.com/diabetesmine/walmart-relion-
| novol...
|
| But the new stuff works better, is faster acting and
| allows a freer lifestyle.
|
| I agree that there is a problem with the pharma industry
| but lying about the problem to try and get change is not
| going to help the cause.
| DrScientist wrote:
| I think it's more likely that active research is on more
| selective treatments than just better chemo - chemo is a
| pretty blunt instrument.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > their patent is still owned by certain oligarchy.
|
| I don't know that it's helpful to have such a blunt and un-
| nuanced take.
|
| Theres no "certain oligarchy" that holds a single patent on
| "chemotherapy" as a broad concept, as it encompasses
| various chemical treatments for cancer. specific
| chemotherapy drugs and methods are patented by
| pharmaceutical companies and research institutions, for
| example:
|
| - NanOlogy LLC: holds a patent for a method involving
| injecting large surface area microparticle taxanes directly
| into the tumor, combined with systemic delivery of
| immunotherapeutic agents.
|
| - Johns Hopkins University: assigned patent rights for a
| method related to cancer treatment to Becton-Dickinson &
| Company, which then sublicensed them to Baxter.
|
| - University of Cincinnati Clermont College: has a patent
| for breakthrough chemotherapy technology involving
| nanocarriers.
|
| - Northeastern University: reports a patented molecule,
| WYC-209, that eliminates cancer cells.
| DrScientist wrote:
| About 1/8 of global deaths are due to some sort of bacterial
| infection, pretty close behind cancer ( 1/6 ).
|
| However for children the number that die of infection in the
| UK is double that of cancer deaths - ( ~15% versus ~7% ) -
| and that's in an advanced economy.
|
| Infection is a big problem.
|
| In terms of barriers to making treatments - yes in part there
| is a problem with the right financial incentives - but it's
| not the only problem - finding molecules that simultaneously
| kill bacteria, won't be rapidly evolved around, and are safe
| to take isn't that easy. Then you have the problem of
| selectivity between bacteria - how many different sorts will
| it work with - 'good' verus 'bad' bacteria etc. Then you have
| the problem of being able to make the molecule at scale etc.
|
| The good news is there is a constant bacteria on bacteria,
| fungus on bacteria chemical war going on - hence the paper.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >The good news is there is a constant bacteria on bacteria,
| fungus on bacteria chemical war going on - hence the paper.
|
| The question is shouldn't we explore it more?
|
| Put dangerous bacteria in contact with other bacteria,
| fungi, viruses, prisons, viroids, archaea and see what kill
| them, how and why?
| DrScientist wrote:
| We could definitely do more - one of the challenges here
| is that some bacteria are quite picky about where they
| grow - ie there a lots that don't grow on a petri dish.
| So not always so easy to grow side by side.
|
| Note from the paper - they stored the soil samples _for a
| year_ on growth media before testing ( to allow any
| compunds to build up presumably ). That doesn 't sound
| like a fast process.
|
| Our knowledge of what's out there is quite biased by what
| grows well in the lab - probably less than 1% of all
| bacteria will grow on an agar plate.
| Funes- wrote:
| >{x} is not very profitable
|
| This sums up most of the problems with the late stage
| capitalism system we are forced to live in.
| vladms wrote:
| Blaming difficulty of problems on capitalism alone is
| disingenuous. There are huge scientific projects that are
| not profitable and still done because there is a somehow
| clearer path forward (ex: UKBioBank, CERN, ITER).
|
| When I hear "{x} is not very profitable" I think people
| mean "we are not sure if we succeed doing {x} and it
| requires us to divert lots of resources from other things
| that we think would be more useful".
|
| Pharma companies invest already huge amounts in drugs and
| many fail anyhow. Quote: "It takes 10 to 15 years and
| around US$1 billion to develop one successful drug. Despite
| these significant investments in time and money, 90% of
| drug candidates in clinical trials fail."
| (https://www.asbmb.org/asbmb-today/opinions/031222/90-of-
| drug...)
| jdiff wrote:
| That quote itself seems to be disingenuous, conflating
| "one successful drug" which costs $1B with "drug
| candidates in clinical trials." Even more so when taken
| from context, as the next sentence in the article is
|
| > Whether because they don't adequately treat the
| condition they're meant to target or the side effects are
| too strong, many drug candidates never advance to the
| approval stage.
|
| And that doesn't sound "successful" at all. How much
| money is sunk into R&D at the point of failure is the
| much more relevant statistic to consider. If the
| pharmaceutical industry wasn't wildly profitable, they'd
| be investing those billions elsewhere, leaving drugs to a
| slow-cooking niche.
| vladms wrote:
| There is no claim that each drug costs 1$ billion. If you
| stop after 1-2 years of development you might have wasted
| some millions, if you stop after 3-4 years you wasted
| tens of millions and so on. The 10% success is still very
| low, because you can still fail after 10 years
| (potentially investing a lot)
|
| If you are interested in the topic, for example for
| oncology: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkope
| n/fullarticle... , to quote "Failed drug development in
| oncology incurs substantial expense. At an industry
| level, an estimated $50 billion to $60 billion is spent
| annually on failed oncology trials."
|
| There is no "oracle" that says invest 50 million (or 100
| million or 1 billion) in X or Y and it will succeed (in
| pharma or other domains). And this is not exclusively
| because of capitalism, it is because doing some things is
| hard.
| sejje wrote:
| How is the research in the non-capitalist environments
| comparing?
| tmnvix wrote:
| Which non-capitalist environments?
|
| When that question was more easily answered you could
| probably have pointed to macrophages.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| It's because antibiotic resistance is a misunderstood issue.
| If one antibiotic doesn't work, you move on to the next.
| Maintaining antibiotic resistance is energetically costly to
| the bacteria. If you aren't actively selecting with that
| antibiotic, its resistance will be lost before long as
| mutants with deficient antibiotic resistance are now more fit
| and outcompete those with functional antibiotic resistance.
| trentlott wrote:
| It's much easier if you invest in observing the natural world
| that has had hundreds of millions of years to do the work,
| without the limitation of human intention.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| The Amazon rainforest has evolved for at least 55 million
| years. It is likely home to millions of compounds of
| potential medicinal value. In just 50 years 100 million
| hectares, 390 billion individual trees 16,000 visible species
| and (estimated unknown) >100,000 types of non-visible fungi,
| bacterium, microbes etc, have been destroyed. It's why I
| found this wide-eyed statement in TFA particularly cringe:
| The discovery shows that "there is terrifically interesting
| stuff hiding in plain sight".
| thegabriele wrote:
| May I suggest you to watch "Common Side Effects" - an very good
| animated series loosely based on your premises?
| 0xEF wrote:
| It's a fantastic show, but I am not sure it touches on the
| commenter's point at all. The show is a take on what might
| happen if a panacea was actually found to exist. That's a bit
| different than a mere novel antibiotic. I even think the
| writers are pulling a lot of punch with how violent and
| insane Big Pharm, Governments and even independent groups
| would get about control over it.
|
| Still, highly recommend people watch it. Great animation and
| art style, good writing and characterization, music is pretty
| rad and it's quite the trip at times.
| noduerme wrote:
| I haven't watched the show, but your description just made
| me think about the "panacea". Virus-wise, I was obsessed
| with the idea of the DRACO antiviral concept for years.[0]
| It's really unclear why funding was pulled for it.
|
| Then again, the idea behind "28 Days Later" was that
| everyone got a cancer vaccine and turned into zombies...
|
| [0] https://riderinstitute.org/discovery/
| adzm wrote:
| > the idea behind "28 Days Later" was that everyone got a
| cancer vaccine and turned into zombies
|
| This was not in the movie at all. It was the extremely
| contagious "rage" virus, inadvertently released by animal
| rights activists.
| hawkjo wrote:
| Producing large quantities of drug resistant bacteria sounds at
| least BSL3. The principle might make sense, but one wouldn't
| "spray the fields" of something like that.
| throw310822 wrote:
| Or try an evolutionary approach. Artificially enforce some
| dependency between an organisms' (fungi, bacteria) ability to
| kill a wide spectrum of targets, and their own continued
| survival. Let the organism spread on a large matrix in close
| contact with the targets and zap the areas where the targets
| are thriving; repeat until you have evolved strains that are
| effective in destroying the targets. Wonder if it's possible or
| even been tried.
| treyd wrote:
| I believe there's a group [1] at the MIT Media Lab doing
| this. Certainly others.
|
| [1] https://www.media.mit.edu/groups/sculpting-
| evolution/overvie...
| bluGill wrote:
| What makes you think there exists a way to fight that isn't
| harmful the host. Antibiotics work by stopping some biologicial
| pathway - there are only so many of those in bacteria, you can
| stop them at any point of course, but you have to stop it.
| However most of those pathways are also in other lifeforms and
| so stopping the pathway means you kill not only the bacteria
| but also human/mushroom.
|
| We have been lucky that we have found a few pathways that are
| not in human (read mammals) that are in bacteria we worry
| about. However bacteria just finds a different pathway and odds
| are that is a pathway in humans and so we can't use it because
| it would kill humans as well.
| KSteffensen wrote:
| The main problem with development of new antibiotics is not that
| it requires groundbreaking new science to be invented, but that
| there is no business case for it. Or at least the business case
| for spending your R&D on anti-obesity medicine looks a lot
| better.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Yeah, someone else mentioned that as well; if the researched,
| mass produced and readily available antibiotic is still mostly
| effective and sells well, spending millions on finding and
| getting approval for one that would only be used in 1% of cases
| is not profitable.
|
| Gotta love capitalism.
| mmooss wrote:
| > The main problem with development of new antibiotics is ...
| that there is no business case for it.
|
| It sounds like the main problem is a for-profit healthcare
| system.
| mentalgear wrote:
| Most importantly, the use of novel antibiotics must be strictly
| prohibited in the animal food industry.
|
| This is crucial because the misuse of antibiotics in livestock
| farming has been a major driver of antimicrobial resistance
| (AMR), a global health crisis. When antibiotics are overused or
| improperly applied in animals, bacteria can evolve to become
| resistant, rendering these life-saving drugs ineffective for
| treating infections in humans and animals alike.
|
| It has always been a perversity that life-saving reserve
| antibiotics were ever permitted to prop up the grotesque
| machinery of the modern food industry--a system built on global-
| scale animal cruelty.
| bestouff wrote:
| Yeah, like if the current US situation would tend towards food
| industry safety ...
| shafyy wrote:
| The people have the power. Why not millions of people are on
| the fucking streets every day across the US is beyond me.
| danparsonson wrote:
| Perhaps because they feel like they have the power and it's
| more often the disenfranchised who end up on the streets?
| kristiandupont wrote:
| >The people have the power.
|
| What do you picture will happen because of protests,
| exactly? That the administration realizes the error of its
| ways? Because it seems more likely to me that they would
| use it as an excuse to implement more autocratic measures.
| MrDrDr wrote:
| https://www.aeinstein.org/
| digitaltinfoil wrote:
| Protests let people at home who are feeling alone in
| their frustration that there are many more people who
| feel like them. I also felt like you did until someone
| framed it that way for me.
|
| A protest isn't supposed to be a singular event, it's a
| series of events that crescendos into a movement--and
| it's the crescendo that scares the people in power.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Then, since there are more people who voted for the
| current administration, there can be even more powerful
| counter protests. Then we can have people fighting in the
| streets, then a civil war.
| dxdm wrote:
| Are you really trying to say that people should not
| protest, unless they are the overwhelming majority or
| easily ignored, because their protest will (or even just
| might) turn into a civil war?
| johnisgood wrote:
| Civil war may be a necessary war, eventually.
| astrange wrote:
| Crescendoing into a movement doesn't /do/ anything. This
| is just self-satisfaction for the kinds of people who
| like protesting.
|
| Other things like voting and getting elected do actually
| do something.
| emeril wrote:
| -as a democratic american - why bother?
|
| -roughly half of the us populace supports the current
| authoritarian regime and the other half's senators and
| representatives are largely useless and aren't even doing
| what they can except for say wearing an adult diaper while
| giving a 25 hour speech
|
| -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or elsewhere)
| when the time comes - much easier to move than any other
| option
| e40 wrote:
| Half the voters. 36% didn't even vote.
| brookst wrote:
| Sure they did. They voted that they were fine with either
| option.
| speed_spread wrote:
| Or did not approve of either option. No way to tell. Same
| result.
| ryandrake wrote:
| If you don't bother to vote, then you're [almost
| literally] saying you're OK with whoever wins. If that
| wasn't your intention, you would vote for some third
| party that you were OK with.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's not an opinion poll. People vote to try and get
| their desired outcome. If someone views their preferred
| minor candidate as a lost cause in electoral terms, they
| won't bother going to vote because it won't make any
| difference to the outcome. Or, worse, there isn't a
| single candidate on the list in their district who shares
| their views.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Whatever people's reasons and motivations are for not
| voting, the actual effect is implicit endorsement of
| whoever everyone else picks.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Boycotting votes is a legitimate political choice,
| especially when done in an organised manner.
| ryandrake wrote:
| It is absolutely a legitimate choice: It's a choice for
| "whoever wins."
| barbazoo wrote:
| No. At least go and make your vote invalid.
|
| Are people really THAT lazy?
| salawat wrote:
| What we need is to start counting votes of no confidence.
| Until we can explicitly shoot down what the elites or
| representatives think is best for us, at best, voting is
| just a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ossifying
| oligarchy.
| Propelloni wrote:
| Italy's parliament had for a long time a system where you
| could vote "no confidence" without picking a constructive
| option. It did not serve them well and they abolished it
| eventually.
|
| While I understand the disenchantment, just adding "none
| of the above" without committing to one of the offered
| options is not going to change a thing. You getting out
| on the streets and into politics is what changes things.
| bluGill wrote:
| Those who cared voted for a third party not stayed home.
| barbazoo wrote:
| People need civics classes, or wherever people learn
| about their system of government, to learn that that's
| not a smart move.
| chpatrick wrote:
| That's the same as voting to let it happen.
| freedomben wrote:
| Can you explain this logic a bit more because it
| genuinely confuses me, but I hear it articulated so often
| that I feel I must be missing something. I find it
| helpful to walk through the logic:
|
| For example, it is frequently framed that there are only
| two (real) candidates, not voting or voting for a third
| party is the same thing as voting for <person I don't
| like>. The <person I don't like> is always Trump if
| you're talking to someone more on the left, and is
| Hilary/Biden/Kamala if talking to someone on the right,
| but the logic is the same (a contradiction should already
| be starting to be apparent). Both people are using the
| same logic to make the same claim, but they obviously
| can't both be correct.
|
| It seems to me that the choice isn't _actually_ binary.
| At least, if you insist that it is, then you must also
| conclude that a person actually gets _two_ votes, because
| consider the following scenario:
|
| Imagine that both major candidates (Candidate A and
| Candidate B) each deadlock and get 10 votes per, and a
| third party Candidate C gets 1 vote. I also have a vote,
| with the following possible outcomes:
|
| 1. I vote for Candidate A. This brings the total to A:
| 11, B: 10, C: 1
|
| 2. I vote for Candidate B. This brings the total to A:
| 10, B: 11, C: 1
|
| If it were a binary, there wouldn't be any more possible
| outcomes. Yet,
|
| 3. I vote for Candidate C. This brings the total to A:
| 10, B: 10, C: 2
|
| 4. I abstain from voting. This brings the total to A: 10,
| B: 10, C: 1
|
| All four of those outcomes are mathematically different,
| which doesn't seem possible if it's actually just a
| binary choice. If the outcome is different when I vote
| for Candidate B vs voting for Candidate C or not voting
| at all, then it seems self-evident that they are not the
| same thing. If I vote for A or B then they win, but if I
| vote C or not at all then there's a deadlock and a
| runoff. Clearly those are not the same thing.
| vladms wrote:
| I have seen people consider the outcome is one of
| "candidate A wins" or "candidate B wins" (so binary). I
| do not fully agree, but practically it seems to be a good
| approximation - as in 30 years nobody reached something
| significant, and there was only one instance in 1872 when
| the 3rd candidate had more than 30%
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-
| party_and_indepe...)
|
| Any of the supporters of "candidate A" or "candidate B"
| will have a vested interest to model it this way, because
| it can mean more votes for their candidate.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| People vote all over the world. In most countries there
| isn't just a binary system. Winning parties change a lot.
| Benanov wrote:
| This is such because the US has a First-Past-the-Post
| system, which encourages only two parties.
|
| Things like Ranked Choice Voting change the dynamics.
| Some states have implemented this. I think AK & ME.
| e40 wrote:
| The calculus of voting is really simple, even when there
| are only 2 candidates:
|
| > Vote for the least evil person.
|
| That's it. If _everyone_ did this, then candidates would
| skew less evil. And after some amount of time, we would
| not have evil candidates.
|
| Was Harris a good candidate. Certainly not. Was she less
| evil than Trump? By a mile. Would we be better off with
| Harris? Seems like that is coming true after a mere 2+
| months.
| autoexec wrote:
| You'll notice that in every one of your possible outcomes
| there's zero chance of C ever winning. That's the
| reality. When it comes to presidential elections, voting
| for C means you throw away your chance to vote for
| someone who actually has a chance to win.
|
| In theory, if massive numbers of people all voted for C
| then C could get more votes than A or B, but the odds of
| that happening are so low that it's never once happened
| in the entire history of the nation. The incredibly low
| odds of winning millions in the lottery (something that
| routinely happens in the US) are much better than
| electing a third party candidate (something that has
| never happened in the US).
|
| Since only A or B ever have a chance to win, your choice
| is limited to only A or B if you want to have any
| meaningful impact on the outcome, and because of that
| fact your choice becomes binary: Either meaningfully
| participate in the election (by voting for A or B), or
| don't meaningfully participate in the election at all
| (either by not voting or by voting for C).
|
| The system could be fixed to give C a chance at winning,
| but that would require the same people who benefit from
| our two party system to support fixing it and not many
| are eager to hurt their own (or their own party's) odds
| of getting elected.
| squigz wrote:
| > -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada
|
| Why, so another country can fall apart because citizens
| throw their hands up in the air when they disagree with
| the other side - instead of trying to, say, change minds
| and fix things?
| euroderf wrote:
| Yup, changing minds is a snap when you're dealing with a
| mass cult.
| freedomben wrote:
| It does get much easier to throw up your hands and
| dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think
| of them as just a mass cult.
|
| I actually agree that most of the people involved with
| politics are pretty cult-ish (especially the die-hard
| MAGAs), but I refuse to believe that 60 million people in
| the US are like that. Maybe it helps that I live in a
| very red area so I have regular and routine contact with
| a lot of people who I know voted for Trump but are
| generally and genuinely thoughtful and contemplative, but
| have different opinions/conclusions on the best solutions
| than I do. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant to assume
| that you are always right and someone else is always
| wrong.
|
| Changing minds isn't easy, and it isn't fast, but it is
| clearly possible. Else how do you explain the shifts back
| and forth? Bush 41 -> Clinton -> Bush 43 -> Obama ->
| Trump -> Biden -> Trump? How do you explain the
| relatively rapid swing from opposition to support of gay
| marriage?
| squigz wrote:
| > It does get much easier to throw up your hands and
| dismiss "the other side" if you dehumanize them and think
| of them as just a mass cult.
|
| Funnily enough, I have a harder time convincing people
| that they do this and that it's significantly
| contributing to the problem, than I do arguing against
| those who those people would lump in with the "mass cult"
|
| Funny, but tragic.
| senko wrote:
| Do antibiotic-resistant bacteria respect borders?
| skyyler wrote:
| No, but the tax revenue I give to the government does.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Godspeed!
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| The discussion on here has lowered to reddit levels of
| yuck. But I digress- happy trails!
| RankingMember wrote:
| > -I fully plan on eventually moving to canada (or
| elsewhere) when the time comes - much easier to move than
| any other option
|
| I completely understand this sentiment but hope you
| don't. Things are bad, but they're not going to get
| better if everyone who thinks they're bad leaves. The
| problem with a U.S. descent is that the negative impact
| will hit just about anywhere you try to parachute to.
| staunton wrote:
| > I fully plan on eventually moving to canada
|
| Wherever you move, presumably it won't be a place where
| people think like you do (or you'll soon be moving
| again).
| palijer wrote:
| The average person doesn't have capacity to care about
| policies that lead to the long term development of drug-
| resistant bacteria.
|
| We couldn't even convince everyone to wear masks, this
| won't be an issue people will rise up in mass protests
| for... People are literally being kidnapped and thrown into
| detention centers without due process and there are not
| massive protests.
|
| It takes a lot to make people protest, this ain't a battle
| for it.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > People are literally being kidnapped and thrown into
| detention centers without due process and there are not
| massive protests.
|
| For the record, there have been (and will be more)
| significant protests about this [0]. Corporate media does
| a fantastic job of ignoring and minimizing protests
| they're not in favor of (because they are actually
| effective...).
|
| If you're old enough to remember, think back to how the
| world held some of the largest anti-war protests in
| history back in the early 00's. Turns out, corporate
| media with strong financial links to defense contractors
| aren't much interested in covering that. At the same time
| reporters who took too much of an anti-war stance were
| literally fired... And things have gotten progressively
| worse with every administration since.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| How many millions joined those street protest? Not saying
| it is a bad cause but there has not been any significant
| protests about it with any significant % of the
| popultion.
| logifail wrote:
| > How many millions joined those street protest?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-
| war_prot...: "The British Stop the War Coalition (Stop)
| claimed the protest in London was the largest political
| demonstration in the city's history. Police estimated
| attendance as well in excess of 750,000 people and the
| BBC estimated that around a million attended."
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/11/slugs-
| iraq-w...: "In February 2003, 1.5 million people
| protested in London against the looming Iraq war. They
| didn't stop the conflict... but their legacy still looms
| large"
|
| add in David Kelly - RIP - ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert) ) and it's not a surprise
| that people are unconvinced that peaceful protest will
| achieve anything :/
| mandmandam wrote:
| > it's not a surprise that people are unconvinced that
| peaceful protest will achieve anything :/
|
| Many people are unconvinced, yes... The thing is, look
| how hard corporate media and the yacht class work to shut
| it down. I think they're _terrified_ of peaceful protest.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| I think they're scared of what the protest _represents_.
| A protest is "peaceful" as long as it wants to be; the
| Black Lives Matter protests showed this can change very
| quickly.
| smac__ wrote:
| > Corporate media does a fantastic job of ignoring and
| minimizing protests they're not in favor of
|
| Honest question: What incentives do Corporate media have
| to ignore these current set of protests?
| mandmandam wrote:
| > What incentives do Corporate media have to ignore these
| current set of protests?
|
| I mean... How much Chomsky have you read? He'll give you
| a much better overview than I could. This shit isn't new.
| I'll have a crack at the question though:
|
| Major networks are owned by just five or six
| corporations. Their boardrooms and major shareholders
| interlock with defense contractors, private prison
| giants, and border security firms that make billions from
| deportation policies. Have you any idea how much of our
| money these fucks are pulling in? ... Every protest
| covered legitimately threatens their shareholders'
| portfolios. This also goes for big tech/social media.
|
| Networks also fear losing access to both parties, which
| are pushing harsh immigration policies. Kamala swore to
| be tougher on immigrants than Trump, and Democrats have
| lately been crowing that Trump is deporting fewer people
| than Biden did.
|
| Any "objectivity" is a thin facade. They don't _want_ to
| challenge the immigration narrative that drives ratings
| among their core demographic, which is such a helpful
| distraction from inequality, and which is driving their
| shareholders portfolios up.
|
| When _forced_ to cover protests, media employs tactical
| reporting: dramatically under-counting crowds,
| obsessively focusing on any hint of disorder, and
| platforming the most extreme voices while ignoring
| reasonable demands. The well worn playbook is designed to
| delegitimize, and a horrifying proportion of Americans
| eat that shit up and ask for seconds.
|
| The corporate media isn't neutral, or just biased. It's
| _complicit_. These issues matter hugely to the status quo
| they defend, and people recognizing their own power, and
| what our taxes are being spent on, is a massive threat to
| an unfathomably evil status quo.
|
| "The media serve the interests of state and corporate
| power, which are closely interlinked, framing their
| reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of
| established privilege and limiting debate and discussion
| accordingly." - Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, 1988 (and
| look how media has consolidated since then)
| praptak wrote:
| This is outdated. These days billionaires openly and
| publicly tell the owned media what to write.
|
| Bezos, in his own words:
|
| "I shared this note with the Washington Post team this
| morning:
|
| I'm writing to let you know about a change coming to our
| opinion pages.
|
| We are going to be writing every day in support and
| defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free
| markets. We'll cover other topics too of course, but
| viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be
| published by others. [...]"
| mandmandam wrote:
| It's true, it's not a very well kept secret. And still,
| even if most Americans distrust it, the vast majority of
| us remain wildly ignorant of just how bad our media
| really is.
|
| "The general population doesn't know what's happening,
| and it doesn't even know that it doesn't know" - maybe
| even more true now than it was in 1993.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| > personal liberties and free markets
|
| Codeword for "Jeff Bezos's continued monopolistic
| domination of online retail and logistics at the expense
| of everyone else". In other words, he's doing to right-
| libertarians what rich billionaires _always_ do to right-
| libertarians. Play them like a fiddle.
| astrange wrote:
| He's retired. He doesn't care about dominating retail,
| he's busy dating Latinas.
| astrange wrote:
| There's like four different New Left misconceptions here.
|
| 1. Protests are effective - no they're not, this is a
| myth because people believed they ended the Vietnam War.
| If you have power and a belief in doing something, why
| should you care if a random stranger doesn't like it?
|
| 2. Corporate media - this comes from the idea that
| everything bad is because of "corporations", common with
| Gen X people. The only successful media right now have
| strong personal opinions, although frequently those are
| evil personal opinions, and aren't solely motivated by
| profits.
|
| 3. Defense contractors - this comes from the idea that
| since war is bad, and corporations are bad, we must be
| doing wars because it makes money for defense companies.
| This is in fact totally false - they make less money
| during wars because they have to make boring products
| that work, whereas in peace time they get contracted to
| make fake superweapons we think sound cool. Wars are
| basically unprofitable for everyone.
|
| 4. And finally, if you think everything gets worse all
| the time this is actually depression and you should get
| it checked out.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Employment tied to healthcare. There's your answer.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The only benefit of health insurance purchased via
| employers is that you can use pre-tax income to pay for
| it. Otherwise, it has all the same deductibles and out of
| pocket maximums as policies purchased on healthcare.gov,
| except for government employees and some unionized
| businesses.
|
| The answer is that most Americans still have pretty
| decent lives, and they like those in power (whether or
| not they are actually benefiting).
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Uh, no, it's a group plan so it's cheaper.
| DANmode wrote:
| It can be.
|
| It often isn't, especially if you're the user using the
| plan.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Not necessarily. The risk profile of the group in a
| specific self insured business is not guaranteed to be
| healthier than one not part of a business.
|
| Most states publish their approved premiums for
| healthcare.gov plans, and I don't think I've encountered
| a self insured business plan with materially different
| premiums/deductibles/oop max.
| wormlord wrote:
| It took 30 years between Lenin's brother being executed by
| the state, and the Russian revolution. History has
| momentum, and the gains from the New Deal are still enough
| that many Americans dont feel comfortable putting their
| bodies on the line. People's dispositions are a function of
| their material reality and the reality is that most people
| haven't internalized the damage yet.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| it took a world war for the state to weaken enough to
| matter...
| nine_k wrote:
| Trump administration is branded as "Republican", even
| though Republican icons like Reagan would be appalled by
| it.
|
| In the mind of most Americans, the opposition to the
| Republican party is the Democratic party, which has been
| comparably insane lately, only a different direction.
|
| A real opposition that the US politics needs is a kind of
| "common sense party" or "real needs party", but the FPTP
| election system, and the coasts vs "flyover states"
| division pushed by the forces that benefit from the "us vs
| them" division (most political forces) work against that.
| Forces like Forward Party, that sort of seem to fit the
| bill, are tiny.
|
| People don't go out to streets just because; they need
| well-formulated ideas, some local leaders that would
| organize it, groups of like-minded people (online at least)
| that let the ideas brew and steep, etc. All this is not in
| a great shape now.
| jyounker wrote:
| > Democratic party, which has been comparably insane
| lately, only a different direction.
|
| How do you see the democratic party being insane in a
| different direction?
| autoexec wrote:
| Americans are too busy going to work, with an increasing
| number of them needing more than one job just to get by. If
| people protest instead of working they will be fired which
| means they'll also lose their health insurance.
|
| Since we're all sickened by the poisons corporations put
| into our food/water/air/products and by a sedentary
| lifestyle which has been strictly enforced from the age of
| 5 we wouldn't last long without health insurance. Almost
| all Americans are just one uncovered medical expense away
| from bankruptcy and/or homelessness.
|
| Even still, there have been a huge amount of protests
| recently. There are protests nearly every weekend in and
| around major cities. All those fired government workers
| have a lot more time on their hands so I expect that will
| continue (until their prescription medications start
| running out anyway)
|
| https://wtop.com/dc/2025/03/vets-protest-trump-doge-and-
| musk...
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/02/17/anti-
| t...
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2025/02/05/anti-
| t...
|
| https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/thousands-across-
| the-u...
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/04/04/hands-off-
| pro...
|
| https://www.npr.org/2025/03/29/nx-s1-5343986/anti-musk-
| prote...
| sMarsIntruder wrote:
| Nice concept of democracy you have
| robotnikman wrote:
| In general I would agree, but with RFK in charge of that
| stuff I hope he is able to enact some change
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't know if there's much merit in opposing antibiotic
| use in cattle if that position is just a small coincidental
| component of your broader pro-disease ideology.
| deepsun wrote:
| Mmm why US specifically? The most overuse of livestock
| antibiotics is in India (and India has a lot of drug
| factories).
| dartos wrote:
| really?
|
| because of the current situation in the US...
| Quarrelsome wrote:
| US is well known for its questionable high scale farming
| practices that often have no interest in any sort of animal
| welfare. Its one of the primary reasons for import controls
| across Europe for US meat products. It comes up every time
| the UK or EU negotiate trade deals with the US and came up
| extremely often during Brexit.
|
| If those import markets were open European producers would
| struggle to compete with US-agri due to its sheer volume
| and lack of interest in animal welfare and/or disease
| control. The UK specifically suffered issues in the past
| with such issues via "Mad Cow Disease" in the 90s and has
| attempted to reform its practices as a consequence.
|
| Conversely US agri still seems to ignore these existential
| nightmares, as most recently seen with Bird Flu and the new
| administration's troubling ideas with how to deal with it
| (e.g. the suggestion to avoid culls in order to "find
| resistent birds").
| lazide wrote:
| This is really hilarious, India's practices are orders of
| magnitudes worse.
|
| They just don't get the press, and no one expects better,
| so....
| chasil wrote:
| And another major problem is that these antibiotics are
| found in nature.
|
| Penicillin production was revolutionized when it moved to
| Peoria, IL and found the famous cantelope:
|
| https://www.pjstar.com/story/news/local/2019/04/25/peoria-
| pl...
| noduerme wrote:
| Top-tier antibiotics need to be reserved for humans.
| Absolutely. Obviously, overuse of any antibiotics in huge
| populations of humans or animals leads to bacteria evolving
| resistance... for a random event in a trillion, it ends up
| being a pretty determinstic fact, just like neutron decay.
|
| It doesn't necessarily follow that using 2nd or 3rd tier
| antibiotics in limited cases in animal populations is always
| unwarranted, so long as we're aware of the potential for
| resistance and we're developing new ways to counter it. You
| have to play the cards you're dealt. Yes, the elimination of
| mass meat farming would go a long way toward preventing the
| adaptation of novel resistant bacteria. The situation, though,
| is that this type of farming will continue to happen for a long
| time. Regulations should prohibit the overuse of antibiotics,
| without completely preventing their use.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Routine use of antibiotics is already prohibited in EU and most
| developed countries.
| wiz21c wrote:
| How routine is routine ? I'm sure the agro industry will have
| a very broad interpretation of that...
| friendzis wrote:
| Roughly preventative use.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| In most EU countries it is very hard to reach a doctor in
| decent time unless you can afford to pay a lot.
|
| So you can suffer for weeks with an infection and high fever
| because the pharmacies won't sell you antibiotics because you
| don't have a paper from a doctor.
| lasergyro wrote:
| Been in Portugal and Austria. Never had this issue, public
| doctors only.
| StormChaser_5 wrote:
| Here in Ireland I've never had to wait more than a few
| hours to see a doctor to get a prescription for an
| infection. Can be a bit harder at the weekend but still
| seen the same day
| poincaredisk wrote:
| In which EU country do you live? I moved twice and I never
| had this experience. Visits this routine can be done almost
| without delay, sometimes directly off the street inbetween
| scheduled patients.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Even in Hungary it is easy to reach a doctor. The
| difficulty is in finding a doctor who gives a damn.
| pmags wrote:
| Unfortunately, in terms of antifungals both the EU and US are
| still using tons of them in the context of agriculture [1]
| which is contributing to drug resistance of human pathogenic
| fungi [2].
|
| The references below focus on Aspergillus, but there are many
| such example in other fungal pathogens.
|
| [1] Impact of the use of azole fungicides, other than as
| human medicines, on the development of azole-resistant
| Aspergillus spp.
| https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/9200
|
| [2] Celia-Sanchez BN, Mangum B, Gomez Londono LF, Wang C,
| Shuman B, Brewer MT, Momany M. Pan-azole- and multi-
| fungicide-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus is widespread in
| the United States. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2024 Apr
| 17;90(4):e0178223. doi: 10.1128/aem.01782-23. Epub 2024 Apr
| 1. PMID: 38557086; PMCID: PMC11022549.
| hinkley wrote:
| The US is a lot of space and India is a lot of people and
| animals. More than twice the land and around three times the
| population of Europe.
| shafyy wrote:
| Completely agree. Reducing or getting rid of livestock animal
| agriculture will help with many major challenges we have today,
| like climate change, loss of biodiversity, animal cruelty,
| antimicrobial resistance. But hey, gotta have that cheap
| burger, huh?
|
| We, the people, have the power to improve this situation. Call
| your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends about
| it, vote for the right candidates.
| exe34 wrote:
| we the people don't want change.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Are you arguing against the change itself or making the
| point that most people don't care? Sorry to ask I just
| can't tell.
| exe34 wrote:
| the latter. people even claim to want change, but then
| they go about doing the same old things every day. they
| want others to lower their quality of life or spend more.
| shafyy wrote:
| That's because many people just don't have time to take
| action or inform themselves, because all they care about
| (and rightly so) is how to bring food on the table for
| their kids.
|
| Of course, this is exactly what authoritarian governments
| want. People who are exhausted, just poor enough but not
| too poor to start a revolution. People who don't have the
| time to read (really read, not watch TikTok videos) about
| important issues.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, because people have limited bandwidth for caring
| about things. I wish all livestock was raised humanely,
| and that the cost of meat accurately reflected that
| _actual_ costs to society.
|
| But I like to eat meat, and I have lots of other things
| in my life to worry about; doing something to improve
| this situation is nowhere near the list of things I will
| actually have the bandwidth to work on.
|
| > _they want others to lower their quality of life or
| spend more._
|
| This is the other sucky part: while we should be paying
| the "real" cost of meat, I don't think it's fair to make
| meat only affordable to those who are fairly well-off.
| That sounds like something out of a dystopian speculative
| fiction novel.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I'm fine with the burger being expensive, just want the
| burger.
| shafyy wrote:
| That's part of the problem. You wanting the burger has all
| these negative consequences for humans, animals and nature.
| kelnos wrote:
| You can't just say something is bad and expect billions
| of people to change their wants in order to achieve your
| political and moral goals.
|
| I'm fine with the cost of a burger pricing in all these
| externalities, but I also don't like the idea of turning
| something like meat into a luxury good where only well-
| off people can afford it.
| averagefluid wrote:
| > but I also don't like the idea of turning something
| like meat into a luxury good where only well-off people
| can afford it.
|
| Why is that? What are the downsides of this scenario?
| Genuinely curious, as I believe this has been the norm
| historically.
| brookst wrote:
| What are the downsides of taking a relatively affordable
| good that people enjoy and making it a luxury good for
| the rich only?
|
| Is there a word that's the opposite of "tautology"?
| Because this question seems like an example. It maps to
| "what are the downsides of decreasing quality of life for
| most people".
| glenstein wrote:
| Antibiotic resistance isn't pertinent to quality of life?
| vladms wrote:
| It is about choices. You gain a certain amount of money
| and you can do various things with them. You can choose
| to eat 100 burgers I can choose to eat 100 carrots and
| buy a TV.
|
| Antibiotic resistance implies "killing most of people
| faster" which in my book is worse than "decreasing
| quality of life for meat eaters".
|
| I do eat meat occasionally, but I generally I am not able
| to eat all that I like each day (think: different
| cuisines, deserts, etc.) so maybe people just did not try
| enough stuff to enjoy more than one/two dishes... which
| in itself sounds sad to me.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >Antibiotic resistance implies "killing most of people
| faster"
|
| We will always discover new drugs. Because we are smart
| due to animal fats we eat and our brains thrives with.
|
| Also, why propose quiting raising cattle instead of a
| more careful using of the antibiotics when treating
| animals?
| DeepSeaTortoise wrote:
| It only has been a "norm" for a few thousand years during
| the agricultural era for the poorest of the poor, who
| could neither obtain hunting privileges, afford to keep
| their own animals, had no access to food, work or
| communal programs, which provided them with some meat, or
| there were significant famines which made the culling of
| livestock necessary.
|
| Beyond that I'd argue we should strive to minimize class-
| based access restrictions to food rather than artificaly
| enforce them.
| themaninthedark wrote:
| What is the downside of the scenario where only the rich
| can afford to own houses or land? After all historically,
| the rich owned the land and just allowed the poor to live
| there.
| glenstein wrote:
| You can't think of a middle ground between runaway
| antibiotic resistance and taking away poor people's
| houses?
| themaninthedark wrote:
| There is. Just as the GP was responding to a comment
| about meat availability and not just wanting to end meat
| consumption.
|
| >That's part of the problem. You wanting the burger has
| all these negative consequences for humans, animals and
| nature.
| glenstein wrote:
| I'm not seeing how that context makes your comment make
| more sense. I am not seeing that they were charged with
| any kind of unreasonable extrapolation along the lines of
| "wanting to end meat consumption," nor why that would
| create context that sets up your dichotomy.
|
| Now it sounds like you're saying you know there was a
| middle ground but were saying it anyway to make some kind
| of rhetorical point, but I don't know what rhetorical
| point you are making.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >What are the downsides of this scenario?
|
| Apart from widespread illnesses, malnutrition, physical
| weaknesses and reduced life expectancy?
| wiz21c wrote:
| Many people accept that swimming in polluted area is a
| bad idea and that they will have either to move to
| another pond or just not swim at all. So why can't we
| just accept that eating (way) too much meat is not
| good...
| brookst wrote:
| Since people's behavior in these cases is different (as
| you say) perhaps "we" should instead accept that the
| situations are different enough to merit different
| behavior?
| freedomben wrote:
| It is natural for humans to eat and desire to eat meat.
| You might as well criticize people for having sex drives
| (which clearly sometimes lead to negative outcomes), or
| needing to urinate, or criticizing dogs or lions for
| their eating of meat. I think we can and should develop
| alternatives and put our higher levels of intellect to
| use, but that isn't going to change our natures and it's
| not reasonable to expect large amounts of people to
| voluntarily choose to become monks and forsake the
| natural man. If you really want to fix things, developing
| more sustainable and healthy replacements is the way, not
| trying to shame them for their naturally-endowed
| characteristics.
| glenstein wrote:
| At this point we're trafficking in tediously obvious
| truisms. This is Learned Sage Warns Powerball Not As Much
| After Taxes territory. I don't think anyone imploring us
| to change agricultural practices is unaware of these
| fundamentals about human nature. Presenting them in this
| context as if they represent a counterpoint implies that
| there's a fundamental futility to even trying, which I
| think takes the convo in the wrong direction.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _I don 't think anyone imploring us to change
| agricultural practices is unaware of these fundamentals
| about human nature._
|
| I don't disagree necessarily, but to be clear my comment
| was't directed at a wide audience, but rather directed at
| GP who did say something that to me would indicate
| heavily that they are either unaware of or choose not to
| acknowledge those fundamentals about human nature:
|
| > _You wanting the burger has all these negative
| consequences for humans, animals and nature._
|
| I fully concede that I may be reading it too literally,
| but I don't think it's unreasonable to take what people
| say at face value. In fact I think that's the most
| reasonable thing to do as attempting to read minds over
| the internet quickly deteriorates conversation into
| talking past each other and people assuming you're
| lying/misrepresenting your _true_ intentions (aka,
| reddit). I don 't think I've interpreted their statement
| uncharitably either, though if I have that was
| inadvertent and was not my intention.
|
| But also, my main point was more about the path to
| success than the tediously obvious truism. My main point
| is that shaming people for their nature isn't generally
| effective. I've seen this first-hand having grown up in a
| religious environment that heavily shamed sexual
| feelings/activity outside of marriage. The path to
| success (IMHO of course) is to develop palatable
| alternatives to meat.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >I don't think anyone imploring us to change agricultural
| practices
|
| Before discovering agriculture, we were hunters
| gatherers. Practicing agriculture allowed human
| population to expand tremendously.
|
| If you forbid agriculture, how do you wish to proceed
| with eugenics and euthanasia? Because not practicing
| agriculture will probably only allow 2% of mankind to
| survive.
| glenstein wrote:
| How did you get from change to forbid?
| glenstein wrote:
| Trying to read them as charitably as I can, I think they
| are suggesting they're okay with moving away from
| destructive practices that make red meat so cheap and
| paying the higher cost that comes with it.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| I don't see any negative consequences. Humans are
| omnivores, humans eat meat. So are bears, badgers,
| raccoons, red foxes, chimpanzees, civets, pigs.
| glenstein wrote:
| When bears, badgers and raccoons start factory farming
| and training bacteria to have antibiotic resistance, we
| can talk about those.
|
| And if and when they do, our response would be to
| consider interventions, not to treat it as a reason to
| disengage from the problem of antibiotic resistance.
| derektank wrote:
| I think part of whywhywhywhy's point was that many
| (though likely not all) of the negative externalities of
| meat consumption could be fixed by taxing them and
| raising the price of the burger, without outright banning
| it
| glenstein wrote:
| Right, and if that's what they meant, I honestly don't
| think it's that bad of an idea. One of the objections
| here is that it shouldn't be a luxury for the rich which,
| well fine, channel it all through a redistributive system
| then.
|
| Though I suspect cheap lab grown meat (absent some
| reactionary political backlash like we've seen in
| Florida) can make it cheap and accessible to everyone and
| possibly bypass the concerns about antibiotics.
| palata wrote:
| Please write this down and keep it. In 10-15 years from
| now, explain to your kids that _you knew_ , but you proudly
| didn't give a shit.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Be honest about the timescale, I understand why climate
| activists use the "10 years" timeline because its hard
| for people to care about something beyond that and the
| idea that we need to panic about it to enact mass change
| but I think anyone can thinking critically for even a
| moment can see nothing will have significantly changed in
| 10-15 years on this matter.
|
| Personally I think lying about the timeline just gives
| ammunition to climate denialists because each time it's
| rolled out it creates a data point a denier can point at
| and say "look nothing happened".
|
| Realistically if this is a problem it's my adult
| grandkids at most or great-grandkids who it would begin
| to impact.
| tremon wrote:
| It's already impacting people today. The same logic that
| you employ to deny that it's happening today can be used
| 80 years from now to deny that it's happening then: the
| change is too gradual for people to notice (insert quip
| about boiling frogs here), and the coping strategies will
| develop alongside.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| As one example: 10 years ago we had winters with typical
| snowfall and summers that weren't constantly in the
| extremes. 10 years from now we'll have some other notable
| difference that is noticeable in everyday life,
| particularly given the disappearing groundwater around
| the globe (we can even set aside the guaranteed continued
| loss of biodiversity) and rising ocean temperatures.
|
| We won't be in a post-apocalyptic hellscape in 10 years
| if that's your measuring stick for negative effects.
| palata wrote:
| I meant 10-15 years as in "when they are 16-20 years old
| and actually start to understand how fucked we are".
|
| > Realistically if this is a problem it's my adult
| grandkids at most or great-grandkids who it would begin
| to impact.
|
| It's already impacting us. We are measurably living in a
| mass extinction that is happening faster than the one of
| the dinosaurs.
|
| The way it's going, GenZ (probably millenials) are more
| likely to die from this than from age. After having lived
| in global war times. Anyone in their thirties or less
| being anxious about their retirement are missing the
| bigger problem they will be facing at that age.
| tremon wrote:
| 1) This is a collective-action problem. Stop blaming
| individuals for failures of the collective, it's
| counterproductive. The only thing that will happen is
| that people will entrench themselves in their current
| position (and might make them start voting for orange
| convicts whenever they can).
|
| 2) Your ire is misdirected. Whether this individual does
| or does not eat meat has 0.000000001% impact on the meat
| production industry. Your energy is much better spent
| advocating for policies that reduce overall meat
| consumption, as the GP was voicing their support for.
| palata wrote:
| Wait, what? "Stop blaming individuals who proudly say
| that they don't give a shit, because it's counter-
| productive"? Is that your point?
|
| We're at a point where whoever thinks we're fine is
| totally uninformed. We're living in a mass extinction
| that is measurably happening faster than the one of the
| dinosaurs (spoiler: they disappeared). We're going for 4
| degrees warming (and that's a conservative estimate),
| which means that half of the planet will become
| uninhabitable (as in, if you stay outside without life
| support, you die). What happens when half the planet
| wants to move (together with all their military force)
| where the other half of the planet is?
|
| And what's the answer to that? "Hmm I think we will
| miraculously find a solution, in the meantime I want my
| burger".
| tremon wrote:
| Please quote the part where the parent you responded to
| said "I don't give a shit", or where they said "I think
| we will miraculously find a solution". You're tilting at
| straw men.
| palata wrote:
| And you're in bad faith. The parent I responded to was
| responding to this:
|
| > Completely agree. Reducing or getting rid of livestock
| animal agriculture will help with many major challenges
| we have today, like climate change, loss of biodiversity,
| animal cruelty, antimicrobial resistance. But hey, gotta
| have that cheap burger, huh?
|
| They said "I don't care if it's cheap, but I want my
| burger".
|
| Can you understand where I come from?
| hinkley wrote:
| The person GP is responding to made it clear they're
| willing to pay a premium for a burger that isn't based on
| a pyramid of misery, which makes the response all the
| more misplaced.
|
| There are models of agriculture that achieve better
| sustainability by using a small number of livestock as
| unskilled labor to emulate the wild environments that the
| plants our gene stock come from were adapted to. This
| will likely be the model moving forward, especially as
| petrochemical fertilizers get more expensive.
|
| "Just enough" livestock will still get too old to breed
| or provide labor. They will still have too many babies in
| good weather and need to be culled in subsequent bad
| years. That doesn't put T-bone steaks on everybody's
| plate, but it does provide enough animal protein to
| approximate the traditional Asian diet of a few ounces of
| animal protein per day, as soup stock and a bit of
| variety.
|
| The future will still have chicken soup even if burger
| joints go away.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >In 10-15 years from now, explain to your kids that you
| knew
|
| My kids enjoy eating meat and dairy. I hope my
| grandchildren will, too, because is healthy to have a
| well balanced diet.
| hinkley wrote:
| The healthiness of dairy is about 75% propaganda from the
| dairy association of America.
|
| Cheese has been with us for millennia. About half as long
| as we have had civilization. Other cultures (yogurt, etc)
| for I don't know how long. But the fixation on milk is
| largely a product of oversupply.
| palata wrote:
| > We, the people, have the power to improve this situation.
| Call your representatives, do activism, talk to your friends
| about it, vote for the right candidates.
|
| And stop eating meat and fish! It's insane for many reasons
| even if you don't care about how the animals are treated:
|
| * Biodiversity loss: because we kill everything in the sea by
| fishing, and we kill everything in the fields for intensive
| agriculture (which is needed to feed the cattle). And because
| of deforestation of course. * Antibiotic-resistance: because
| putting so many animals (fishes or cows) together brings
| diseases we need to treat. * CO2 emissions: it's super
| inefficient, we all know it.
|
| Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely
| unreasonable.
|
| We had Greta Thunberg talking to politicians, but actually
| I'm looking forward to when kids will ask their parents: "So
| you know you are killing us in so many ways, and you can't be
| arsed to eat less meat? Aren't you supposed to care about
| us?"
| kalenx wrote:
| By this logic, having a car in 2025 is "just completely
| unreasonable". Taking plane in 2025 is "just completely
| unreasonable". Use of AC unless life threatening
| circumstances is "just completely unreasonable". Wasting
| rainwater and use drinkable water to wash your car (or
| yourself, actually) is "just completely unreasonable".
| Eating cashew/almond or other highly water intensive crops
| grown in a dried out area (California...) is "just
| completely unreasonable".
|
| Note that apart from the rainwater one, I do none of the
| above, so I'm not even pleading for myself and my "way of
| life". I'm just showing how easy it is to boldly state that
| "it is obvious, we just all have to be reasonable" while,
| in fact, _not_ being "reasonable" yourself.
| palata wrote:
| I call this bad faith. You're right, living the way we
| live is unsustainable. That's why _almost all species are
| dying_ , and that's not yet a consequence of global
| warming. Now, some things are harder to change than
| others, and have more or less impact.
|
| Stopping to eat meat/fish is probably the one thing that
| is reasonably easy, cheap (vegetarian food is globally
| cheaper), and would have a _huge_ impact.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Well, humans and other omnivores species do need the
| rapport of animal diet.
|
| And raising cattle dates from the dawn of civilization.
| It was sustainable tens of thousands of years and
| suddenly became unsustainable in the last ten years?
| palata wrote:
| > It was sustainable tens of thousands of years and
| suddenly became unsustainable in the last ten years?
|
| You really don't have a clue how it works, do you? I'm
| genuinely concerned.
| glenstein wrote:
| Yes! I'm not sure what the your intended upshot here is,
| but those _absolutely_ would be beneficial changes in
| behavior and are perfectly in line with prevailing
| recommendations of ways behaviors need to change to
| mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, and related
| recommendations more broadly in line with environmental
| conservation and public health.
|
| Far from a counterpoint, they testify to the
| reasonableness of the request in this instance, of
| stepping away from factory farming, because it belongs to
| a class of similar and well respected recommendations.
| Getting people to actually change their behavior is an
| important issue, and the purpose of recognizing it should
| be to reckon with it in a serious way rather that use it
| to tee up complaints about hypocrisy that seem to imply
| the futility of doing anything.
| kalenx wrote:
| The thing is, I'm not arguing against the fact (yes, the
| fact) that doing this would beneficial. I'm saying that
| stating how "simple" and "reasonable" are these actions
| is missing the point.
|
| Again, not a personal attack, but do you follow all of
| these actions (I could add more similar ones)? Do you own
| or use a car? Have you ever taken a flight? Went on a
| cruise? Ate cashews or almond milk? If so, why are you
| doing this? Why are you (to use the terms stated by OP),
| so unreasonable, unwilling to do so simple things for
| your children?
|
| I'm not saying that any action is futile, but that the
| cost (monetary or otherwise) to take them is _vastly_
| underestimated and basically swept under the rug with
| arguments of reasonableness and simplicity.
|
| And, just to restate, I am not defending my own
| lifestyle, it's not an emotional argument to make for me.
| glenstein wrote:
| I might have missed something, but I don't see anyone
| suggesting such changes are easy. If anything, I feel
| like I'm seeing opposite arguments, imploring people to
| understand that we're working against human nature.
|
| My concern is that both sides are frustratingly obvious
| and are corrections in search of someone or something to
| be corrected. I don't think that anything you're saying
| is strictly wrong, but I think it's baffling to offer in
| this context where it seems to be a counterpoint in a
| room full of people who already agree with it (except for
| maybe that I-want-my-cheeseburgers-at-any-price guy).
| This is what I mean about Learned Sage comments, and I
| think the fix is to cover your bases with charitable
| interpretation.
| vladms wrote:
| Not sure what's your point though. I do think people will
| always do "some" unreasonable things, but doing all
| reasonable things at once and as much as we can is
| probably not smart so we should at least discuss it. How
| large should a burger be? How many times per day should
| you wash your car? What temperature should you use for
| your AC? Don't know, but if someone tells me they eat 1kg
| burger at each meal, they wash their car 3 times a day
| and they put the AC to 15 in the summer I would tell them
| they are not reasonable and that they can enjoy life
| better if they change a bit their habits.
| kalenx wrote:
| This, I absolutely agree with. Yes, there are small
| things you can do which (collectively) _can_ have an
| impact.
|
| I'm arguing against : "So you know you are killing us in
| so many ways, and you can't be arsed to eat less meat?
| Aren't you supposed to care about us?"
|
| You can replace "to eat less meat" by basically a
| thousand different "reasonable" things. Does that mean
| that _literally everyone on earth_ is willingly "killing
| their children and not caring about them"?
|
| I really dislike those arguments patronizing everyone.
| They achieve nothing -- actually quite the contrary, at
| _best_ they do nothing for someone who do not feel
| targeted, at worst they turn people against your cause.
| There's a difference between stating that each of us can
| and should take action because those are needed and
| saying that everyone not doing X is a child killer. If
| someone suggest that I should stop drinking almond milk,
| I would consider it. If they introduce this by telling
| how ashamed I should be and how my children will hate me
| for this -- but not for long since they will soon be dead
| anyway because of me -- well, maybe I'll just ignore an
| otherwise perfectly reasonable and fact-based suggestion.
| vladms wrote:
| Definitely it should not be patronizing. Presentation was
| so bad for various important topics (burning fossil
| fuels, nutrition habits, sex stuff, etc.).
|
| Still, personally I try to let myself challenged even if
| the argument is patronizing. I don't want to say "I will
| not do X because you made a patronizing argument!". But
| for the cases I conclude it is actually a good idea, I
| will try to explain to the people making the argument
| "you would have convinced me easier if communicated like
| this".
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely
| unreasonable.
|
| Last time I checked humans are omnivores, not herbivores.
|
| I don't want to get ill, acquire some physical weaknesses
| because there are unreasonable people on the internet.
| makeworld wrote:
| Check again. A balanced vegetarian diet is perfectly
| healthy.
| AnonC wrote:
| > Not being a vegetarian in 2025 is just completely
| unreasonable
|
| Don't stop there, because being a vegetarian (lacto or ovo)
| has a larger environmental burden too. Go vegan instead.
| palata wrote:
| Sure, but it's _a lot_ harder. If the whole world turned
| vegetarian, that would already be a great victory, wouldn
| 't it?
| lm28469 wrote:
| > This is crucial because the misuse of antibiotics in
| livestock farming has been a major driver of antimicrobial
| resistance
|
| Who cares ? As long as we have cheap eggs and burger patties!!!
| meindnoch wrote:
| Meanwhile doctors in India hand antibiotics out like candy.
| aqme28 wrote:
| Though I believe that still pales in comparison to US
| agricultural use. Based on some rough data sources I think
| the US uses about 2-3x more antibiotics on livestock than
| India uses on people.
| arunc wrote:
| Antibiotics are not cheap. Make it cheaper and you will see
| how they will use it on livestock.
| fc417fc802 wrote:
| The relative usage isn't even the primary issue. The
| surrounding conditions are. Farms are ideal breeding
| grounds for quite a few reasons. Add to that rather
| barbaric practices that can result in treatment periods
| dragging on quite a bit and the result isn't at all
| surprising.
| emeril wrote:
| and those indian made antibiotics sometimes are little
| different in effectiveness than candy
|
| I dread it when any generic medication I get is made in india
| or china since the fda doesn't meaningfully regulate/test
| their stuff
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Is that true? Since it should not be imported / available
| let alone perscribed if it doesn't pass the checks. And
| especially in the US, a doctor wouldn't hand it out if it
| didn't have the right paperwork because they would be
| litigated out of their livelihood.
| freedomben wrote:
| I can't speak to the truth of the claim, but I do think
| it worth noting that they didn't claim they received it
| from a US doctor.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I've imported many medications directly from India via
| the internet and so far it has all been legit - I don't
| go for the cheapest source YMMV.
| clown_strike wrote:
| No.
|
| Ranitidine was pulled from US shelves. Indians sell it
| online. It's the real deal.
|
| Alldaychemist is legit, but I've only bought
| dermatological/beauty stuff there.
|
| I've even bought Modafinil from some US based website
| that shipped from India. Customs believed it was legit
| and seized a few shipments. One that got through didn't
| do shit but maybe it's just me.
| hooverd wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if they bin the good stuff for the
| export market.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Antibiotics are much cheaper there. They even prescribe it as
| a preventive measure.
| cromka wrote:
| WTF
| dv_dt wrote:
| One use of antibiotics in the cattle industry is as a way
| of increasing weight in livestock. It's theoretically
| discouraged now for that purpose now in the US, but last I
| looked there were large loopholes for preventative health
| purposes in herd management
| bilsbie wrote:
| If we have enough drugs with different mechanics bacteria can't
| out evolve all of them. It becomes less of a risk.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Sure they can, by being exposed one at a time, developing
| resistance to each.
| scaredginger wrote:
| There may be some cost to each resistance gained, reducing
| the fitness of the bacteria
| pfdietz wrote:
| And there may be general resistance mechanisms that hit
| more than one chemical (like changes in membrane
| permeability and efflux pumps.) Over time, with more
| exposure, the costs can be expected to decline as
| resistance is optimized.
|
| Ultimately resistance can evolve that kicks in only on
| exposure to the chemicals in question. Bacteria already
| do this with, say, the enzyme needed to metabolize
| lactose. The gene isn't expressed until lactose is
| present.
| hinkley wrote:
| This is why we use "cocktails" on resistant cases now.
|
| Kill it three different ways at once and it cannot adapt
| fast enough to leave dna fragments for the next microbe to
| pick up and continue the work.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's like saying we just need more nukes to deter other
| people with nukes from nuking us.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Antibiotics are not a deterrence because bacteria cannot be
| negotiated with. Similarly the concerns of fallout are
| minimal. The evolved resistance comes at a cost, evolving
| many resistances comes at many costs. There is a point
| where the bacteria cannot continue to evolve resistances
| yet remain competitive in the absence of the antibiotics.
|
| AFAIK there is a new class of molecules specific to
| thwarting the resistance mechanism that makes the bacteria
| susceptible again in ways that cannot be out evolved. I'm
| looking for the general name for this technique - I do
| remember reading about it.
| bilsbie wrote:
| I don't see the connection.
| cantrecallmypwd wrote:
| Meat agriculture, as practiced in most of the world on an
| industrial basis with insufficient regulation, leads to
| pandemics, evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, climate
| change, and air, water, and soil pollution.
| mmooss wrote:
| > leads to pandemics
|
| Regarding this detail, there has been only one pandemic
| recently and it has not been attributed to 'meat
| agriculture', though it may have involved wild meat.
| M95D wrote:
| > New antibiotic that kills drug-resistant bacteria
|
| But will it kill humans too?
|
| There's lots of antibiotics out there. Most of them will kill
| _everything_ , including us, and we don't want them.
| djmips wrote:
| First paragraph.
|
| "Researchers have discovered a new antibiotic molecule that
| targets a broad range of disease-causing bacteria -- even
| strains resistant to commercial drugs -- and is not toxic to
| human cells. [1]"
|
| "[1] Jangra, M. et al. Nature
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08723-7 (2025)."
| dubcanada wrote:
| People need to learn to actually read articles before writing
| comments. As the other commenter posted it's literally answered
| in the first paragraph.
| djmips wrote:
| It's interesting that this antibacterial molecule is created by a
| bacteria. So there's one bacteria that's resistant I guess. But
| maybe that's not a concerning type of bacteria but I hear that
| bacteria can transfer traits from one species to another...
| gilleain wrote:
| Oh it's completely expected that bacteria create antibiotics -
| it's part of the low-level chemical warfare that bacteria carry
| out against each other. Plants as well are chemical factories
| ('secondary metabolism') that produce all sorts of crazy
| compounds to kill each other off, as well as insects.
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| Love the British humour! Read the bold heading of the first
| subsection.
| kelnos wrote:
| https://archive.is/5OyBO
| anthk wrote:
| >Enable Javascript and cookies to continue.
|
| That's why I prefer Science Alert and their RSS'.
| pfdietz wrote:
| > The ribosome is an attractive antibiotic target because
| bacteria don't easily develop resistance to drugs targeting the
| structure, adds Lewis.
|
| Sure they do, by the general mechanism of preventing the drug
| from entering the bacterium and/or pumping it back out. Bacteria
| have general mechanisms for removing molecules they don't need.
|
| This molecule is a peptide, so one mechanism for developing
| resistance would be evolution of a specific protease. Bacteria
| already have enzymes for breaking peptide bonds.
| yawnxyz wrote:
| The road from finding a new molecule with antibiotic properties
| to passing Phase 3 is... long, arduous and not worth it.
|
| And if you do spend the $1bn to get there, you end up like
| Achaogen. For anyone in this field, read this teardown of
| Achaogen: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03452-0
| jakedata wrote:
| So it only kills drug resistant bacteria that came from the
| technician's garden? That seems unusually specific.
| jumperabg wrote:
| Amazing this is another new type of antibiotic that was
| discovered maybe for the last 6 months?
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| "New antibiotic that kills drug-resistant bacteria" until we
| freely give the recipe to developing country pharmaceutical
| companies with no requirement to control distribution so now this
| antibiotic is given for a simple cough and we're back where we
| started.
|
| Antibiotic resistance is as much a political problem as a biology
| one.
| mmooss wrote:
| Developing countries should be deprived of antibiotics, or
| affordable antibiotics? _cui bono?_ That 's too convenient for
| big pharma companies.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-04 23:00 UTC)