> Most things in the world eventually self-correct. But before that happens, many people will be hurt and die in the process. Yes, I understand that, but my po

> Most things in the world eventually self-correct. But before that happens, many people will be hurt and die in the process. Yes, I understand that, but my point is that this isn't some apocalyptic end to the world as we know it, and it helps to take the long view of how it will unfold and prepare accordingly. As insensitive as it sounds, it's more productive to look at why something bad happened and what we can do about it rather than lamenting that bad things happen in the first place. Sadly, when you look at large groups of people, it's human nature to ignore problems that don't have short term profitable solutions. People have known about this problem for decades and are unable to persuade the decision-makers to proactively prevent this scenario from happening; it'll be interesting to see how it unfolds as an emergency (probably not very well), and what will be done differently after the emergency is handled. Perhaps non-profit groups like the Gates Foundation will work on antibiotic drugs in the future, simply because for-profit pharmaceutical companies aren't going to touch it because it isn't profitable enough. Or perhaps an international group will try to tackle this problem, similar to how they try to tackle other global problems (which isn't promising: look at how we're globally handling environmental issues). As for looking at this problem now, it may be profitable for people to pick up the dropped research in gram-negative antibiotics. The Hacker News crowd would most likely be interested in the bioinformatic aspect of this problem, modeling gram-negative bacteria and its interaction with various compounds.