HN user
It seems surprising that by the outbreak of WW1, the economic centre of gravity was hovering to the west of Greece. In other words, all of the European imperial powers scrambling over Africa and the New World still produced less combined output than Asia, Oceania, the Middle East and eastern parts of Europe and Africa.
I think all that is meant is that if we are lucky, the threat posed by antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria will be negligible in spite of media hype. Just like terrorism is. A groping comparison perhaps but a fair statement.
Does anyone think it might just be an idea to change the amount of meat we produce? When people start dying at the age of twenty and thirty of bacterial infections that are totally curable today, and gonorrhoea becomes incurable, will we think our current insouciance rational? Will it be seen as a price worth paying in order to have cheap meat? A tremendous proportion of the antibiotics we use are abused as growth promoters for animals reared for meat or their products. They are used pro-actively on healthy animals outside of the EU. Even within the EU, they are used routinely in a way that is driving us towards a post-antibiotics future.
It is pretty sad to reflect that we are not able to prioritize our own health above an immediate desire to consume more meat more cheaply.