[hristov]

What if new antimicrobials do get developed? They will once again be used in massive quantities in dirty and otherwise unsanitary livestock operations, resistant bacteria will develop again and we will be where we started again. Actually we will be at a worse place from where we started because all new antimicrobials that do get developed seem ever more dangerous with ever increasing lists of ever more serious side effects.

The large livestock operations keep their livestock in horrible unsanitary conditions to save money and they create a breeding petry dish for bacteria. They rely on antibiotics to kill the bacteria but in those conditions the bacteria have all the advantages and usually are able to create resistant stains pretty quick.

[Llamamoe]

IIRC, antibiotic resistance fades over time, as genes/mutations coding for it tend to be metabolically disadvantageous.

Hypothetically if we had globally enforced cycling of a sufficient amount of antimicrobials, the problem could likely be somewhat minimised.

[thayne]

One way to handle that could be to regulate when the new drugs are used, and only allow use for humans when there are resistant microbes.

[DoughnutHole]

This would require massive international cooperation and possibly even sanctions on countries with lax regulations.

If you have one country with lax or no antibiotic regulations then that country is going to continue breeding antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Those pathogens will pretty much inevitably escape out to more responsible countries.

This is theoretically doable, but as it stands you can't even get every country to abide by sanctions to discourage proliferation of nuclear weapons.