What is wrong with the world... and what can we do about it?

[Johno]

The worry is not really an impact on humans as such. But the maintenance of a wind turbine is a nightmare, since to work really well it has to be very tall. And you don\'t get an awful lot of energy out of it (as previously stated).

[Ascensiam]

The worry is not really an impact on humans as such. But the maintenance of a wind turbine is a nightmare, since to work really well it has to be very tall. And you don\'t get an awful lot of energy out of it (as previously stated).

Actually my own country has an extremely capable and professional industry and many employed in various matters within wind energy, the seas on either side of my country is very windy and we are planning for complete wind-based self-sufficiency within the coming decades, and decommissioning the coal plants in the western end of the country.

We already have several wind farms up and has so far gotten one of our islands (Samsø) under 100% wind energy.

[Johno]

Interesting. What is the proportion of heavy industry on said island?

(If it\'s mostly residential/commercial, then that\'s a good step but nothing really earth shattering).

[Ascensiam]

Interesting. What is the proportion of heavy industry on said island?

(If it\'s mostly residential/commercial, then that\'s a good step but nothing really earth shattering).

Actually it\'s just a small fishing community with a few thousand inhabitants.

It\'s the red island.

The whole country has 5,6 mil. inhabitants and is very high-tech capable (We invented C++!) which is what makes this project realistic.

[Ydoow]

I don\'t recognize that country :c

[Ascensiam]

I don\'t recognize that country :c

It\'s right here:

It\'s not very big, but we\'re pretty rich and are very green energy minded.

[Ydoow]

Denmark?

Do you speak german there at all?

[Ascensiam]

Denmark?

Do you speak german there at all?

Well, i don\'t want to derail the thread.

We have our own language, but in addition 90% can speak english, 30% can speak german, and 5-7% can speak french.

[Ydoow]

I think I\'ve found my future country!

I\'m kinda tired of living in a place that\'s so diverse in it\'s mindset. It\'s a nice concept, but totally stagnates progress.

/derailment

[Ascensiam]

I think I\'ve found my future country!

I\'m kinda tired of living in a place that\'s so diverse in it\'s mindset. It\'s a nice concept, but totally stagnates progress.

/derailment

Are you saying that seriously? What country do you live in?

[Ydoow]

Land of the Free, USA

Or as I call it,

Land of the Derp.

Maybe I\'m just being ungrateful and don\'t realize what it\'s like in other countries. Even so, I\'d really like to move out into Europe to see if I\'d like it. I was thinking Germany, but I like the idea of a country that\'s full out on Renewable energy

At worst, it would give me a new appreciation for my home country.

But as I see it now, a country is a business. It\'s business is to protect and serve you. I feel very much protected, but a lot of the bureaucracy makes me feel like we\'re seen as votes, rather than people.

A political career is a deadly oxy-moron to me. A politician is performing a public service, a sacrifice to serve the rest of the community. Treating it as a career, or job causes a complete breakdown; it\'s not longer a public service or sacrifice.

It\'s not just the presidential elections where I see this, but it receives the highest coverage so it\'s the most obvious. I\'ve always leaned for Ron Paul because he seems like the only one who is running for President to do something.

The rest seem like their treating the Presidency as running for Prom Queen; kissing as much ass as they can get to receive the most votes.

Ass kissing is totally necessary in any election, but it never seemed like the main Goal for RP.

Everyone else is just here for the show...

In the end, I can\'t take any politics seriously. I don\'t care for politics, I don\'t plan on voting this next election, I can barely keep myself informed on political events.

It\'s not appealing. It\'s a giant reality drama tv show, which I hate.

Incidentally, this brings us back on topic as I see this as something wrong with the world, and not totally specific to USA.

Edit: Another issue is that a lot of these guys make promises, valid in their own claim. But they don\'t have all of the REAL economic data until they get into office which can completely scrub the ideas they ran on.

So many of their promises are 'I will do this until I receive information you can\'t see that will invalidate my promises.'

[Ascensiam]

While we have the same mindset in regards to politicians keeping promises here, our voting system is not the same, it is 100% the people, there\'s no phase where a bunch of higher ups decide who gets to lead (Ergo, had the US used the danish form of democracy, Al Gore would have won in 2000)

It is because we believe setting such \'\'top men\'\' to vote for a leader with their own system is the opposite of universal suffrage, because it means their votes are valued more.

And we see a country as ourselves, not a business, because we, the people, are the country, the government puts us together, but is not the country, they are just people that do what they do best, which happens to be politics, as such, our country is not a business, but a family.

[Ydoow]

Hm. Sounds kinda lovely.

There\'s a side of me that leans for having a type of dictatorship somewhere up top though. Something to make instant, relatively unchallenged decisions when the rest of the country starts freaking out. Or to prevent stalled choices when it\'s a time-critical issue.

I guess dictatorship is a poor word to use. Central government is a bit better.

I plan to move out to Europe eventually though (lord knows how I\'ll do it...), I guess Denmark has bumped Germany off the top of my list

Sounds way too interesting to pass up

[Ascensiam]

Hm. Sounds kinda lovely.

There\'s a side of me that leans for having a type of dictatorship somewhere up top though. Something to make instant, relatively unchallenged decisions when the rest of the country starts freaking out. Or to prevent stalled choices when it\'s a time-critical issue.

I guess dictatorship is a poor word to use. Central government is a bit better.

I plan to move out to Europe eventually though (lord knows how I\'ll do it...), I guess Denmark has bumped Germany off the top of my list

Sounds way too interesting to pass up

I don\'t know about your personal beliefs, but if you actually go to Denmark, there\'s two very important things you need to be aware of.

- Janteloven

A psychological social term used in the country, it\'s a mentality we have here, it means that everyone is worth the same, the Prime Minister is worth the same as a Janitor, they are both just doing what they do best. If you run around with a \'\'I\'m better\'\' attitude because you have a good job you\'re going to get outcast and verbally butchered.

- Spirituality

There\'s not a trace of it left, we\'re 80%+ atheist and churches are being closed down if it wasn\'t because we still need them for gay marriages. If you take pride in religion and talk of it/has clear influence of it people are going to look at you in an awkward fashion, religion is a very personal and private thing here.

Besides that, we have chaotic weather, a good sense of fashion, and plenty of alternative healthy food, all of it in very high quality (we can feed our own population three times with our agriculture).

[Awaras]

I don\'t know about your personal beliefs, but if you actually go to Denmark, there\'s two very important things you need to be aware of.

- Janteloven

A psychological social term used in the country, it\'s a mentality we have here, it means that everyone is worth the same, the Prime Minister is worth the same as a Janitor, they are both just doing what they do best. If you run around with a \'\'I\'m better\'\' attitude because you have a good job you\'re going to get outcast and verbally butchered.

- Spirituality

There\'s not a trace of it left, we\'re 80%+ atheist and churches are being closed down if it wasn\'t because we still need them for gay marriages. If you take pride in religion and talk of it/has clear influence of it people are going to look at you in an awkward fashion, religion is a very personal and private thing here.

Besides that, we have chaotic weather, a good sense of fashion, and plenty of alternative healthy food, all of it in very high quality (we can feed our own population three times with our agriculture).

Sounds like a country I could feel very comfortable in... Well, except for the weather.

[Ascensiam]

Sounds like a country I could feel very comfortable in... Well, except for the weather.

Haha, well, we\'re lucky, Britain catches most of the crazy stuff for us, gotta love the North Sea.

[Ydoow]

I don\'t know about your personal beliefs, but if you actually go to Denmark, there\'s two very important things you need to be aware of.

- Janteloven

A psychological social term used in the country, it\'s a mentality we have here, it means that everyone is worth the same, the Prime Minister is worth the same as a Janitor, they are both just doing what they do best. If you run around with a \'\'I\'m better\'\' attitude because you have a good job you\'re going to get outcast and verbally butchered.

- Spirituality

There\'s not a trace of it left, we\'re 80%+ atheist and churches are being closed down if it wasn\'t because we still need them for gay marriages. If you take pride in religion and talk of it/has clear influence of it people are going to look at you in an awkward fashion, religion is a very personal and private thing here.

Besides that, we have chaotic weather, a good sense of fashion, and plenty of alternative healthy food, all of it in very high quality (we can feed our own population three times with our agriculture).

I\'m no longer very spiritual, but I don\'t think I\'ve completely lost faith yet. Regardless, I\'m certainly not one to run around yelling at people to believe. I actually really hate that...

I don\'t like to think I\'m arrogant. I guess I get a bit snobby when other people get themselves into stupid situations and get all mopey about it like they weren\'t responsible for it though.

I. Love. Crazy weather.

Edit: Whoah, how accurate is this?

http://goscandinavia.about.com/od/denmar1/ss/weatherdenmark.htm

Sunrise 3:30am, sunset 10pm during summer ?

Sunrise 8am, sunset 3:30pm during winter ?

That\'s insane! (in an awesome way)

[Johno]

I think the USA has a bunch of really major flaws in its political system.

1) Presidential elections. In Australia you don\'t vote for the leader. Oh, of course the leader is a factor in which party you vote for, but you are actually voting for the party. Therefore if a party has the policies you want but you don\'t like the leader, no problem; you still vote for the party. As far as I can tell, in the USA the presidential elections are entirely about the leader and/or his personality. There doesn\'t seem to be much discussion of what they actually plan to do. Maybe this discussion happens in the USA but doesn\'t get reported in the media - care to comment Ydoow?

2) Optional voting. In Australia it is a crime to fail to vote. Therefore the government HAS to appeal to the majority of people; you don\'t get anywhere by simply telling your people to vote! This has the very important effect of discouraging parties from moving towards the extremes; the bulk of people are in the political centre, so the party that wins the election is the party that most effectively takes the centre ground.

3) Incomplete separation of church and state. I am a Christian (a serious, dedicated one), so it may surprise you to hear me say this - the church in the USA has way too much influence politically. The Church is at its best when it is separate from government. Too much involvement harms both the government and the church. I know separation is built into the US constitution, but it doesn\'t seem to actually happen.

4) Lack of party discipline. The public vote for a particular political agenda to happen, and they have a right to expect it to be done. In the USA, however, there\'s still so much horse trading in congress. It seems like you can\'t expect a Republican to follow a particular line or a Democrat to vote with other democrats - each one is actually an independent rather than a party member! The result of this is CHAOS. As far as I can tell, the budget in the USA is basically a polite suggestion from the President to the Congress as to what he would like to happen; in Australia, the budget is passed if the government has the numbers in parliament, or not (in which case we get a new election). None of these dead duck governments that can\'t get their agenda through. (Even if it\'s not the budget, if a particular bill fails to pass through parliament three times, the government has the option to call an election). This means that the government in the USA really has trouble enacting change.

Ydoow: If you love crazy weather, get your butt over here to Australia. Weather as crazy as it gets!

[Ydoow]

1) Presidential elections. In Australia you don\'t vote for the leader. Oh, of course the leader is a factor in which party you vote for, but you are actually voting for the party. Therefore if a party has the policies you want but you don\'t like the leader, no problem; you still vote for the party. As far as I can tell, in the USA the presidential elections are entirely about the leader and/or his personality. There doesn\'t seem to be much discussion of what they actually plan to do. Maybe this discussion happens in the USA but doesn\'t get reported in the media - care to comment Ydoow?

Voting for the president here is, in a way, voting for the party too. Not nearly to the extent as you describe, but very often if a party wins the presidential race, they also get majority house in Congress (which does all the voting on laws, bills, etc etc.) Not always, but often.

Here, the party chooses who will run for president; called the Primaries. Right now the Republicans are narrowing down who will face Obama. I believe it\'s between Romney, Gingrich and Ron Paul (very unlikely to win).

If you belong to the party, you get to vote on who will become the presidential candidate. So, we do get to narrow it down to 'Who we like best'/most likely to win for that party.

Problem is they all blow. Which is why many people don\'t vote.

The democrats are going with Obama (who will probably win the whole thing), so no primaries for them.

There\'s plenty of talk on what they\'ll do in the upcoming 4 years, that\'s all they do really. However, a lot of them kiss ass to win.

So it\'s likely you\'ll see them take completely opposite views to matters they had a few years ago to appeal to the public.

Usually resulting in 'Mr. so and so, you want to lower taxes, but just 3 years ago you voted against Senator derp to do exactly that, what do you say to this?'

Or

'You\'re raising a bill that\'s extremely similar to so-and-so\'s from 5 years ago which you voted down, why?'

It\'s very superficial and I find it hard to trust anything they say.

2) Optional voting. In Australia it is a crime to fail to vote. Therefore the government HAS to appeal to the majority of people; you don\'t get anywhere by simply telling your people to vote! This has the very important effect of discouraging parties from moving towards the extremes; the bulk of people are in the political centre, so the party that wins the election is the party that most effectively takes the centre ground.

I don\'t quite see the logic here honestly, or at least I don\'t see how it would change things here.

Most people in the US are very middle grounded; radicals are the extreme (they just get the most media coverage because they sound apeshit crazy and get high ratings).

If implemented it would certainly rise voting rates lol.

I feel like people would start 'Throwing out their votes' though. As in 'Jesus...they all suck...I\'ll vote for the guy most unlikely to win' or some random person.

But who knows, that might actually cause a giant upturn and cause a super unlikely candidate to win lol

3) Incomplete separation of church and state. I am a Christian (a serious, dedicated one), so it may surprise you to hear me say this - the church in the USA has way too much influence politically. The Church is at its best when it is separate from government. Too much involvement harms both the government and the church. I know separation is built into the US constitution, but it doesn\'t seem to actually happen.

I think we\'re just going through a phase.

Right now Separation of Church and State is pretty hypocritical here.

People are getting sued left and right, teachers fired, schools attacked for saying things like 'Merry Christmas' or quoting the Bible. It\'s being argued (very heavily by a very few select crazy people(not politicians, just parents)) that public schools can\'t imply any amount of religion.

So now it\'s \'Winter Break\' not \'Christmas Break\' and \'Happy Holidays\' not \'Merry Christmas\' or you could potentially be sued (I\'m dead serious too...) by a parent who finds that offensive.

So, in that respect, Separation of Church and State is VERY extreme.

However at the same time, we have Churches lobbying against gay marriage, abortion and all that stuff. I\'m not saying gay marriage and abortion is right, just that the Church does influence political decisions there.

The most recent upset was Obama\'s Mandate to force workplaces to offer birth control to women.

Religious leaders went crazy. I mean crazy.

4) Lack of party discipline. The public vote for a particular political agenda to happen, and they have a right to expect it to be done. In the USA, however, there\'s still so much horse trading in congress. It seems like you can\'t expect a Republican to follow a particular line or a Democrat to vote with other democrats - each one is actually an independent rather than a party member! The result of this is CHAOS. As far as I can tell, the budget in the USA is basically a polite suggestion from the President to the Congress as to what he would like to happen; in Australia, the budget is passed if the government has the numbers in parliament, or not (in which case we get a new election). None of these dead duck governments that can\'t get their agenda through. (Even if it\'s not the budget, if a particular bill fails to pass through parliament three times, the government has the option to call an election). This means that the government in the USA really has trouble enacting change.

I disagree with this. It\'s the exact opposite it seems to me.

Political members are extremely dedicated to their party. So much so, that they will do ANYTHING to prevent the other party from accomplishing their goals. They stall votes over periods of months, leaving no decision to be made while the country rots.

My friend\'s economic professor told us it didn\'t use to be like this, that Democrats and Republicans actually did work together before relatively well (not always). I think each party is trying to claim all the credit to boost their image and make the other look like they did nothing.

It\'s what I was talking about, like the whole race is Prom Queen election. They\'re just trying to win and not help the country because they think they\'re way is the right way.

The budget is some random number they make up and change when they want to >_>

Ydoow: If you love crazy weather, get your butt over here to Australia. Weather as crazy as it gets!

The amount of deadly spiders, squid, scorpions and kangaroos scare me D:

[vexx32]

Well, the topic of debate certainly changed quickly. I just thought I\'d add this briefly, before I become too tired to type coherently:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428600.300-hold-the-painkillers-says-darwinian-paediatrician.html

Basically, it\'s an interview with a paediatrician. Who appears to have a very logical approach to medicine.

The basic concept is that the human body has been evolving for thousands of years, and has thus worked out its own ways to deal with infection. Fever, swelling and pain are all reactions created by the body itself. They are not actually caused by the disease. They are a response to that disease. If you think about it, a lot of common medicine these days is wasted countering these symptoms... and the thought this fellow had (he could be on to something here) is that the symptoms are there for a reason. They\'re there because they help the body combat the infection. Granted, there are some cases where the pathogen has managed to evolve in order to take advantage of this (I think the example they cite is malaria), but for the most part, stopping these immune responses just so we can get on our feet better is, in all likelihood, actually making it harder for our bodies to deal with the infection and most likely making us sicker for longer, even if we do feel better. Chances are, modern medicine, so oft cited as genius in some ways, is overused -- basically, this way of thinking (I\'m not saying it\'s 100% correct, but it sure as hell makes sense) says that most of the common antiinflammatory drugs and suchlike (odrugs designed to prevent the common symptoms like fever, swelling, headaches, inflammation, itchiness and pain) are unecessary and possibly even detrimental.

Funny. I\'ve often though we might be doing it wrong... perhaps this fellow is right?

Feel free to continue discussing the flaws of the US political system; I just thought I\'d post this since I just found it.

EDIT: Also, there are roughly the same amount of creepy-crawlies and other animals in general as there are anywhere else, really.

[Caesar15]

Keep in mind that the average life expectancy in ancient Rome was 22-25 years of age compared to today\'s 70-80. Then factor in the sanitary conditions, lead plumbing and the odds you would end up as someone\'s slave...

wait wut

no its 28 years old At age 15, life expectancy an additional 37 years (total age 52).

[Ydoow]

Well, the topic of debate certainly changed quickly. I just thought I\'d add this briefly, before I become too tired to type coherently:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428600.300-hold-the-painkillers-says-darwinian-paediatrician.html

Basically, it\'s an interview with a paediatrician. Who appears to have a very logical approach to medicine.

The basic concept is that the human body has been evolving for thousands of years, and has thus worked out its own ways to deal with infection. Fever, swelling and pain are all reactions created by the body itself. They are not actually caused by the disease. They are a response to that disease. If you think about it, a lot of common medicine these days is wasted countering these symptoms... and the thought this fellow had (he could be on to something here) is that the symptoms are there for a reason. They\'re there because they help the body combat the infection. Granted, there are some cases where the pathogen has managed to evolve in order to take advantage of this (I think the example they cite is malaria), but for the most part, stopping these immune responses just so we can get on our feet better is, in all likelihood, actually making it harder for our bodies to deal with the infection and most likely making us sicker for longer, even if we do feel better. Chances are, modern medicine, so oft cited as genius in some ways, is overused -- basically, this way of thinking (I\'m not saying it\'s 100% correct, but it sure as hell makes sense) says that most of the common antiinflammatory drugs and suchlike (odrugs designed to prevent the common symptoms like fever, swelling, headaches, inflammation, itchiness and pain) are unecessary and possibly even detrimental.

Funny. I\'ve often though we might be doing it wrong... perhaps this fellow is right?

Wait, I always thought it was thought fever and other symptoms were the bodies ways of combating infections.

I never though differently, I was never told differently...maybe I misunderstood someone somewhere in my childhood, but I\'ve always thought this.

I think perhaps you misunderstood the side-effects of infections actually (no offense). Most reactions really are meant to counter-act infections.

Inflammation around pimples is a defense. Pimples are local sub-cutaneous infections, the microbes produce puss. Your body likes to isolate infections like this by causing the surrounding skin to inflame, restricting blood flow to the area to prevent spreading.

This can happen anywhere in the body.

Some reactions are caused by the bacteria themselves, such as Cholera. Cholera (that\'s been genetically altered by a natural viral infection (yes, an uninfected cholera bacteria is harmless)) causes a massive breakdown in reabsorbing water in your intestines, leading to massive diarrhea (10L of water a day is lost. You have about 4-5 Liters of blood).

The infected bacteria releases a toxin that breaks down osmosis between the surface cells in your intestines, so they can\'t absorb water.

The diarrhea isn\'t a reaction of your body, it\'s caused by the cholera.

Ironically (and fortunately), the massive diarrhea flushes out the cholera from your body as well. But you generally die first (without treatment).

Some reactions are extremely detrimental to our body.

e.g. Meningitis and ear infections.

In meningitis, there\'s a chance it can grow in your blood before it reaches your meninges (small liquid layer between your brain and skull). You\'re body reacts so severely to this sepsis (infection of blood) that the reaction to the infection kills you, no the infection itself. The reaction looks god awful too. Capillaries burst causing petechiae (small red spots) and eventually entire vascular collapsement. It\'s not painful, but it looks disgusting when it becomes widespread.

The inner ear can become infection by typical Upper Respiratory (trachea, throat) infections by a retrograde transport found at the back of your throat.

The inner ear SHOULD be completely sterile. When it becomes infected your cells inflame in the area to try to restrict the spread.

It\'s extremely painful, and hence why babies scream their heads off when they are infected (as typically as they are).

Infections work ways around provoking symptoms. It\'s evolutionarily favorable.

50%< of people show no symptoms of most STDs. Isn\'t that nice. They don\'t know they\'re infected, they never receive treatment, infection flourishes, infecting others.

As for treatment.

Most treatments/antibiotics today do not kill bacteria. I never knew this.

In fact, the goal of antibiotics is to Stall bacterial growth and let your body handle the infection.

The exception is when you\'re dealing with immunocompromised individuals or with very severe and rapid spreading infections.

i.e. AIDs patients or Meningitis, respectively.

In that case, they can\'t handle the infection so your goal is to kill the bacteria ASAP. And Meningitis can kill withing 24 hours of infection.

Your body takes a couple of weeks to build up an immune response, so you can immediately see you stand no chance against Meningitis.

Your body, though, is much more efficient at killing the bacteria quantitatively. On top of this, it allows your body to 'remember' the infection, giving you immunity.

So the best and favored option is to let your body handle the infection, while stalling the bacteria from reaching a point that is damaging to your body.

[Awaras]

wait wut

no its 28 years old At age 15, life expectancy an additional 37 years (total age 52).

I found 25, and 53 if you reach age 15, but I thought it irrelevant. The AVERAGE life expectancy was 25-28, it just means that a heck of a lot of the children died before reaching age 15, which is not a nice thing at all...

[Ydoow]

My family laughed at me for voicing my desire to move to Denmark D:

[vexx32]

Wait, I always thought it was thought fever and other symptoms were the bodies ways of combating infections.

I never though differently, I was never told differently...maybe I misunderstood someone somewhere in my childhood, but I\'ve always thought this.

I think perhaps you misunderstood the side-effects of infections actually (no offense). Most reactions really are meant to counter-act infections.

That... is what I said.

Inflammation around pimples is a defense. Pimples are local sub-cutaneous infections, the microbes produce puss. Your body likes to isolate infections like this by causing the surrounding skin to inflame, restricting blood flow to the area to prevent spreading.

This can happen anywhere in the body.

As I said, didn\'t I?

Some reactions are caused by the bacteria themselves, such as Cholera. Cholera (that\'s been genetically altered by a natural viral infection (yes, an uninfected cholera bacteria is harmless)) causes a massive breakdown in reabsorbing water in your intestines, leading to massive diarrhea (10L of water a day is lost. You have about 4-5 Liters of blood).

The infected bacteria releases a toxin that breaks down osmosis between the surface cells in your intestines, so they can\'t absorb water.

The diarrhea isn\'t a reaction of your body, it\'s caused by the cholera.

Ironically (and fortunately), the massive diarrhea flushes out the cholera from your body as well. But you generally die first (without treatment).

As I said, there are some exceptions, although I did fail to mention that some diseases cause the 'side-effects' as you call them. Also, if you have diahrroea, it\'ll flush it out easily enough, you just have to drink a ton of water to stay alive. That\'s all the 'treatment' you really need, for as you said, the cholera often is totally flushed out anyway.

Some reactions are extremely detrimental to our body.

e.g. Meningitis and ear infections.

In meningitis, there\'s a chance it can grow in your blood before it reaches your meninges (small liquid layer between your brain and skull). You\'re body reacts so severely to this sepsis (infection of blood) that the reaction to the infection kills you, no the infection itself. The reaction looks god awful too. Capillaries burst causing petechiae (small red spots) and eventually entire vascular collapsement. It\'s not painful, but it looks disgusting when it becomes widespread.

Aye. I didn\'t mean to imply that ALL reactions are helpful. Just the most common ones Fever, pain, swelling, etc, for the majority of infections. It\'s when something swells that REALLY shouldn\'t (and that the body is incapable of causing swelling in) then you start to counteract it. Say, if your inner ear started swelling a ton, you\'d want to stop that immediately.

The inner ear can become infection by typical Upper Respiratory (trachea, throat) infections by a retrograde transport found at the back of your throat.

The inner ear SHOULD be completely sterile. When it becomes infected your cells inflame in the area to try to restrict the spread.

It\'s extremely painful, and hence why babies scream their heads off when they are infected (as typically as they are).p

Aye. Inflammation helps to contain it and also increases the metabolism (as heat always does), allowing your body to produce cells to fight it off much more quickly than it otherwise could.

Infections work ways around provoking symptoms. It\'s evolutionarily favorable.

50%< of people show no symptoms of most STDs. Isn\'t that nice. They don\'t know they\'re infected, they never receive treatment, infection flourishes, infecting others.

Not always. Some will, certainly, but not all. And if we simply allowed our bodies to deal with this stuff (bar things that our bodies quite literally cannot deal with, deadly diseases we have zero defence against, etc), we\'d be evolving alsongside the pathogens, (hopefully) always being ready.

As for treatment.

Most treatments/antibiotics today do not kill bacteria. I never knew this.

In fact, the goal of antibiotics is to Stall bacterial growth and let your body handle the infection.

Source please. The very name 'anti-biotic', by definition, means it destroys living cells and environments conducive to life. That include the human body and also, they tend to kill the good bacteria as well as the bad, making things worse in many cases.

The exception is when you\'re dealing with immunocompromised individuals or with very severe and rapid spreading infections.

i.e. AIDs patients or Meningitis, respectively.

In that case, they can\'t handle the infection so your goal is to kill the bacteria ASAP. And Meningitis can kill withing 24 hours of infection.

Your body takes a couple of weeks to build up an immune response, so you can immediately see you stand no chance against Meningitis.

Again, probably not a good idea. See, if you clear everything from the patient\'s body, the most deadly bacteria tend to be the ones that multiply fastest and do the most damage. An antibiotic somply clears space for that bacteria to grow as soon as the antibiotic leaves the system. In a patient with immune deficiency or total lack of immunity, that will appear to help over the course of the antibiotics, but there is a rather large risk that subsequent harmful bacteria can enter the body after the antibiotics have left the system before any of the good bacteria can get in again. It has a severe potential to do more harm than good.

Your body, though, is much more efficient at killing the bacteria quantitatively. On top of this, it allows your body to 'remember' the infection, giving you immunity.

So the best and favored option is to let your body handle the infection, while stalling the bacteria from reaching a point that is damaging to your body.

Aye, but be careful about which bacteria you stall. You can\'t stall one without all the rest, and many are quite important in the body\'s digestive systems and such.

Also, on the topic of antibiotics, have a look at this one as well:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328582.700-antibiotics-are-wonder-drugs-no-more.html