Well, antibiotic resistance is already increasing fast, because of the insane amounts of antibiotics used in meat “production”. Sure, hotter weather is helping but the groundwork is already laid.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
194 points (97.1% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5289 readers
438 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They'll blame climate change anyway, and scream how both it and antibiotic resistance — predicted for decades — were completely unpredictable.
Not just meat industry but to everyone even with a slight cold because doctors feel like they have to "do something" or the patient is unhappy and complains.
I always forget about that, you’re right. In my country, doctors are reluctant to prescribe antibiotics to humans, but we have a massive meat industry where it is applied lavishly, often illegally - there is hardly any oversight and it is a cheap way to store even more animals per square foot.
We're getting there without climate change.
Stop supporting industrial agriculture, which is a leading cause of antibiotic resistance.
Stop asking your doctor for antibiotics. You don't need it for a viral infection and they know that better than you do.
How would we not all starve without industrial agriculture? Not sure what you mean exactly.
I think they mean more like plant-based diets where the farmers aren't using antibiotics to cause physical growth.
Just because they're plants doesn't make it not industrial.
Yes, I know. They probably should have phrased it differently. Can we agree there are fewer antibiotics on the crops, though, and that is likely what they meant?
Industrial agriculture, in the United States at least, relies extremely heavily on the use of antibiotics. If there is ever a future in which that is not the case, go ahead and support industrial agriculture if you want to (I'm keeping this strictly to the antibiotic problem). But as it is now, supporting industrial agriculture is also supporting the misuse of antibiotics and the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
I knew crops used pesticides and stuff, why would they use antibiotics too?
I would assume hes talking about livestock farming
That's not agriculture though, crops are. And crops are at least included in agriculture, even if you would expand the definition to also include animals, which I wouldn't.
Animal agriculture is absolutely agriculture. That's why there's a term for it, called animal agriculture.
We could be living in a utopia but instead we're squandering everything the generations before us have achieved all so a few greedy fucks can play king.
We need to be moving away from antibiotics anyway.
It’s annoying that the information environment is so polluted I can’t tell if that site is run by cherry-picking anti-vaxx lunatics or someone who genuinely knows their stuff. The strongest positive signal I see is that they are cautioning against “natural” antibiotics too, which demonstrates basic scientific literacy, a bar most whackos don’t clear.
I agree that it can be difficult to tell if cherry-picking is happening. One thing to look for is literature reviews (which are included there), and look up the names of the experts who are cited (Martin Blaser).
Meh, we've already doomed ourselves, why not add one more cause to the pile.
shit.