from the half-full glass POV we are just speeding up the natural selection of bacteria resistant humans (it has been going for millenia and got, probably only temporary, delayed for the last 80 years). Also, as a side effect, it can help solve (at least temporarily) the overpopulation issue until the much more smart (wrt. health and Earth resources usage) humans evolve. Basic dialectics at work.
Often, what's good for species evolution is really bad for some individuals. What good is a half-full glass to you if you're dead?
Also, as was noted elsewhere in the discussions, evolutionary pressure for bacteria to attain an immunity is high, but pressure to lose one is usually much lower. However, bacteria are small, and such pressure is higher than in more complex celled creatures. "Shelving" antibiotics does work, but would require widespread cooperation and the curbing of feeding antibiotics to livestock.
What bad is it if you're dead?
Bacteria evolves resistance at about the same rate as people develop defenses.
So yeah, if you don't mind killing off a huge segment of the population and having women die in childbirth regularly.
Bahaha that's one way to look at it. I guess we have plenty of humans to spare.
Basically, it's exactly the worst thing you can possibly do, with regards to what the theory of evolution by natural selection tells us. Then add in what we know about bacteria exchanging genetic material, and it's like we're trying to inactivate all of our antibiotics on purpose.