Hello again,
thanks for spending time on my comment. I like to refer to what you've said.
But personally I would prefer to spend the effort on the world, I think it's worth it. Solving a problem in the world is not impossible, any one of us can do it
You don't have a chance other than spending your time and energy on what one calls "your life".
"The world", on the other hand, is a vague term. What do you have in mind, saying "the world"?
Don't you live in a location, differing from mine, deal with people, work, weather, structure, different from mine? Isn't your world something other than my world?
The truth is that viruses and bacteria evolve very quickly and we won't always be able to keep up with them.
If that would be true, man would long have died out. Let me try to give you my perspective:
Evolution cannot be imitated in its complexity. What has taken place in millions of years of symbiosis between all living beings is then supposed to suddenly stop because we humans are supposedly becoming such weak hosts that are not supposed to be able to cope with their many microbacterial inhabitants? Sciences that cannot refer to universal laws, such as gravitation, are theories. A theory is not a law. It is a theory. The virus theory, the bacteria theory may be remarkable, but to believe that man-invented medicine has universal answers to disease, I think is presumptuous. The intelligence of all living things is not as easy to see through as we would like. Saying that we will die en masse from resistant bacteria is in principle no different from saying that we will die en masse from viruses.
Such things seem to be based on the premise that the human body is weakly developed, a fragile, easily killed biological life form. In order to have an adequate response to bacterial diseases at all, we would need to know all the bacteria that occur in order to be able to respond to them with drugs. But we do not. According to your premise, we would not have to experience (have experienced) mass extinction in the future, but already in the past and present.
What you are talking about is the exception to the rule. The life span and change of bacterial life forms and the ability of humans to co-exist in the same way seems to me to be the more compelling evidence that humans as living beings adapt in an amazing way and that you basically cannot separate the evolution of humans from the evolution of microbes because they inevitably belong together. Just take the number of myriads of microbes that inhabit our bodies both externally and internally and then put into perspective how ridiculously few of the microbes harm us in the course of a human lifetime. The interactions of all the processes inherent in the human organism are so amazing that we have no real insight into cause and effect, but are often fishing in the mud. You know very little about what really cured you when you were sick. You may attribute it to medication, but there are countless other factors at play, not only biological but also mental. To try to grasp such things or to believe that they are singular events verges on superstition for me personally.
We know nothing with certainty about the interactions of the organisms living in us, nothing with certainty about the fact that the deadly bacteria you speak of do not come into conflict with the many others that form a counterforce for these very bacteria or else mutate in a clever way from enemy to friend. Everything on this planet is geared towards aliveness. Not to die. That much should be obvious, shouldn't it?
Basically, your lethality theory contradicts the evolutionary orientation towards liveliness. Bacteria that are as deadly as you say would get rid of their own biosphere, it would be an evolutionary dead end.
On the host side, you are not dealing with robot-like, completely identical humans. Because, as I said, everyone has their own unique biome and is always different from other people. In that sense, there are no identical people. In the wonderful evolutionary dance, people on different continents have adapted to the respective climatic and plant conditions.
Of course I can't prove any of this, it's just the things I've read that reflect my interest. But I prefer to believe that it is so, because for me it offers the better, less frightening and also more peaceful view. That we humans are in a co-existence with everything that lives, which is directed towards life and not death. This inevitably comes anyway and is just as much a part of the cycle as everything else.
In summary, I would say that health is the rule and illness the exception. If you turn it around, then one prepares hell on earth for oneself.