Without antibiotics we could cultivate more resistant humans. That's probably not a situation anyone wants, pencillin was huge for a reason.

Now looking into alternate forms of resistances while still enjoying modern treatments, theres an idea.

Bad analogy. Cultivating more resistant humans would raise a bunch of ethical questions.

That's the point of the analogy. Use of pesticides in some part allows us to have stable and cheap access to food. There are similar ethical arguments to be had about restricting pesticides.

Most wealthy westerns only see/know abundance. Pesticides, GMOs, these things prevent famine in most of the world.

> Without pesticides we could create more resistant cultivars.

Doesn't follow. We can create them today. Pretty sure farmers would be very happy on not having to dedicate resources to pest control.

It's probably not even feasible long term. Pests can and do adapt. The main problem is monoculture.

Also, those resistant cultivars are probably not going to do so well when it comes to other variables: shelf life, taste, etc.

I think we do both.