Affirmative Action is a practice in the United States that focuses on providing remedies for the effects of past discrimination. When it is included in the workplace, the goal is to focus on providing employment-based opportunities for people who may have not had opportunities in the past. It is a practice which may be permitted for hiring practices, promotions, training opportunities, or disciplinary action.

Many employers in the U.S. are able to achieve an environment of diversity without reverting to the policies of Affirmative Action. There are, however, certain government contractors who must adhere to the rules which are published by the Department of Labor.

John F. Kennedy began the program in 1961 through the use of an executive order. Legal opinions have found that its practice could still exist if the reason behind its implementation go beyond past discrimination correction.

These are the advantages and disadvantages of Affirmative Action in the workplace to consider.

List of the Advantages of Affirmative Action in the Workplace

1. The practice of Affirmative Action equalizes local socioeconomics.
When Affirmative Action is practiced in the workplace, it creates more equality within the community. People from minority cultures or ethnicities are often faced with challenges in compensation, even when working in the exact same job as a white male. Women currently make 22% less than men do in similar positions. Except for Asian men and women, African-Americans and Hispanic individuals earn less per hour than people who are white. This program works to correct that issue.

2. It promotes diversity within the company culture.
By promoting a culture that is more inclusive and diverse, organizations are able to find strength and innovation that would not be possible otherwise. Did you know that women only hold 4.2% of the CEO positions in the 500 largest companies in the United States? There are more men named David in a Chief Executive Officer position than there are women. Teams that are diverse ethnically and racially outperform teams that are non-diverse by 35%. When blind applications are considered, women are 5 times more likely to be hired. By utilizing Affirmative Action, employers can stop the unconscious bias which occurs when companies hire with their eyes first.

3. Stereotypes are reduced when Affirmative Action is implemented.
You may have heard that the United States is becoming a divided, polarized country. The reason why that is occurring is because there is an internal preference to live with, work with, and be friends with people who are like-minded. One look at this effect is in how Congressional districts in the U.S. have evolved since 1996. The number of regions in the country which don’t have a “clear” or “leaning” preference for one political party have been reduced by 70%. Many of the decisions people make are based on their own stereotypes. This program helps to remove those ideas because it encourages people from different backgrounds and cultures to work together.

4. It creates an opportunity to reverse societal loss.
In the United States, 1 in 3 African-American men will spend time in jail at some point in their lives. For African-American women, the rate is 1 in 18. Even though the gap between minorities and Caucasians in prison has been tightening since 2009, there are still clear discrepancies in the figures. African-Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population, but are 33% of the U.S. prison population. Many of the crimes committed are because of a lack of socioeconomic opportunities, which Affirmative Action in the workplace seeks to reverse.

5. The program forces employers to make justified decisions.
A 2016 study of employment applications, reported by Clear Company, revealed that people who had “white names” received 50% more callbacks than someone with a “Black” name. That rate stayed true across all occupations and industries. The reality of employment in the United States is that African-Americans are 16% less likely to be invited to a job interview than other cultural or ethnic groups. With this program in place, hiring managers must set aside their bias, real or unconscious, because they must follow the law.

6. Companies that practice diversity in their hiring practices earn more money.
When interviewed in 2016, managers said that if they had more cross-border communication opportunities, then it would improve the revenues of their company. Hiring someone who is bilingual is good for the bottom line. Across all industries and occupations, a worker with bilingual attributes earns 10% more revenue for their employer when compared to their single-language counterparts. On teams were there is gender diversity, an organization is 15% more likely to earn revenues that are classified as above-average. Most importantly, companies where true equality is practices earn 41% more revenue than non-diverse firms.

7. It gives companies an opportunity to search for unique talents.
For the kids who grew up in the slums and ghettos of the United States, finding a high-paying job is an almost impossible dream. That’s why an entire generation of kids pursued athletics with their schoolwork. It was their one chance to get their entire family out of poverty without resorting to gangs, violence, or crime. With the implementation of Affirmative Action in the workplace, talent can be sourced from anywhere without having it be screened out. There are opportunities to find success when there is skill or talent present, even if there isn’t a degree offered as evidence.

8. When employed in the workplace, Affirmative Action creates new business opportunities.
Employers must use Affirmative Action in their hiring practices if they want their firm to qualify for government contracts in the United States. A follow-up executive order by Lyndon B. Johnson is specific in its requirement that a company establish, then maintain an Affirmative Action policy to be awarded a government contract. Although the availability of this work varies with the administration that is in the White House, the revenues that are often available create a lucrative opportunity for companies that are wanting to expand.

9. It gives a business the opportunity to take a moral stand.
Taking a moral stand within the workplace creates indirect advantages for the organization. It tends to draw people toward their open positions who want to foster an environment which focuses on tolerance, equality, and justice. There is a reassurance provided with this program that speaks to the promise of full consideration for a job that is available. When organizations come out in favor of a specific issue, they can also attract new customers.

List of the Disadvantages of Affirmative Action in the Workplace

1. Affirmative Action attempts to correct discrimination by causing a new form of it.
The Cambridge Dictionary describes the word “discrimination” like this: “It is the treatment of a person or a particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated.” In politics, it is also described as a “prejudice against people and a refusal to give them their rights. That is why the legal opinion of Affirmative Action has changed over the years. Making up for past discrimination by creating discrimination is ineffective. A better solution is to provide educational opportunities, vocational learning, and other tools that help people change their circumstances. When this practice is enforced in the workplace, it might improve diversity, but it might also exclude the best people for the job.

2. Diversity must be planned to be beneficial for the modern organization.
Affirmative Action creates diversity for the sake of having it. Although every employer wants to bring in the best person for the job, when this practice is employed in the workplace, a person’s ethnicity or culture becomes just as important as their skill. We must create a planned diversity in the workplace to generate strength. If employers are hiring people in a way that helps them meet specific quotas, there is a good chance that this program will hurt them more than it will help.

3. With Affirmative Action, we are reacting to problems instead of solving them.
What does it mean to have an equal workplace? It should mean that every person, no matter what their race, skin color, culture, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, gender, or any other point of separation, has the same opportunity to pursue their personal definition of professional success. Affirmative Action forces employers to look at socioeconomic issues when our priority should be to improve our educational infrastructure. We need mentoring programs instead of diversity quotas. One of the biggest issues with Affirmative Action is that it is reactive to societal problems and we must be proactive.

4. It reinforces stereotypes and bias instead of correcting them.
Although the purpose of Affirmative Action in the workplace is noble, it actually does the opposite of what is intended. It automatically assumes that hiring managers are biased toward people who are minorities. For those with a bias, either real or unconscious, that perspective reinforces the idea that one group of people are superior to the other. You might hear someone say, “That person wouldn’t have gotten their job if quotas or preferred hiring practices weren’t in place.” And there’s a good chance that they would be right.

5. We cannot legislate the personal bias of someone away.
In 2017, hate crime rose by 17%. In Seattle, WA the number of hate crimes recorded by law enforcement in 2018 were almost double of what they were the year before. Even if we go back to the Civil Rights Movement, we see the struggles that society has with classism, politics, and overt racism. Even the Civil War in the U.S. was fought over a state’s right to declare slavery has a legal activity. Instead of trying to force people into a different perspective, we must work together to show them that diversity is beneficial. Affirmative Action in the workplace seeks to revolutionize employment and we must seek evolutionary opportunities instead.

6. It reduces the impact of accomplishments that minority groups make.
Because society’s perspective is that Affirmative Action in the workplace hands someone their job, the impact of doing good work is reduced. The achievements are viewed as a result of the hiring program instead of what the employee was able to accomplish. This program may have been created with good intent, but over the years, it has turned into a problematic issue for many. Even when their personal skills and talents meet the job requirements, many minorities find themselves working hard, longer, and for less pay all because they must prove their worth because of this issue.

The advantages and disadvantages of Affirmative Action in the workplace do encourage a diverse workspace. It seeks out chances to create equality, reduce pay gaps, and provide employment opportunities to those who have their culture, ethnicity, or gender as a barrier. On the other hand, it could be argued that this type of program creates discrimination in a reverse direction, forcing others to pay for the sins of past generations without cause. Because of the gap between these two perspectives, Affirmative Action will always be a controversial issue to some on both sides of the debate.

When you talk to seniors and the elderly, you’ll discover that many of them share a similar perspective. 87% of them want to stay in their own home for the rest of their life. Being able to age in place is one of the fastest-growing trends for the senior living industry. There are multiple benefits to consider: comfort, security, proximity to family, and independence all rate high in importance for those who are aging.

Yet that is only one element to the aging process. It is something that we all go through as we take on the journey that is life. We face bodies that don’t work the same way, aches and pains that are new, and the advancing threats of disease that seek to ruin our good health.

These are some of the biggest pros and cons of aging – though to be fair, every person has a unique perspective on this subject, so think of this information as more of a guideline.

List of the Pros of Aging

1. Seniors are one of the happiest demographics of people in the world today.
Multiple studies and surveys show that seniors are one of the happiest groups of people in the world today. Compared to the middle-aged demographics, they are significantly happier with their circumstances. Part of the reason for this perspective is that they’ve had more time to develop their coping mechanisms. Finances can play a role in this perspective as well. As we age, there is also more time to become comfortable with who we are.

2. There’s nothing like the joy of having grandchildren.
Gore Vidal once offered this observation about aging: “Never have children – only grandchildren.” When the little ones are around, you get to enjoy all the benefits of children without the sleepless nights, the diaper changes, and the extra homework. The love of a grandchild is pure, which creates a closeness that is indescribable. Children benefit from this relationship as well, as kids develop socially and emotionally at their best when 4 to 6 adult family figures are available to them.

3. You have more time to spend with loved ones.
Aging begins to slowly push you out of the working world if that’s what you want. A retirement by itself isn’t a relaxing experience. It is what you choose to do when you stop working for an employer that helps you make life “start at 60.” One of the best components of a retirement is that you have additional time to spend with the people you love. Leisurely lunches with friends, overnights with the grandkids, or that trip overseas you’ve always wanted to take can make aging joyous.

4. Seniors still have an opportunity to pursue their dreams.
As we age, many of us put off our own dreams to care for our families. We focus on making sure that the power stays on, food gets put on the table, and having our children find success in their endeavors. It’s never too late to become the person you’ve always wanted to be. You can still learn a new language, write a book, take a trip, or take up a new hobby, like painting. Some seniors even turn their passions from this discovery process into a second lucrative career later in life.

5. There are more opportunities to start volunteering.
As people age, they tend to see life with a broader perspective. Instead of focusing their energy on drama and conflict, they look toward the creation of a better society. Seniors often want to create a better world for their grandchildren to enjoy. People above the age of 65 vote more than any other age demographic. They volunteer at one of the highest rates, especially in the United States. These are all options that can help you be active and form new relationships.

6. Wisdom comes from the aging process.
If you ask people in their 20s or 30s about how they perceive losing, you’ll find that a majority of people hate it. As we age, the wisdom of experience creates new perspectives. Older people look at the entire experience of life instead of focusing on a specific event which inspires regret. We gain more control over our emotions as we age as well, which typically deepens the relationships formed with a significant other. Aging offers better social skills, a higher emotional intelligence, and thinking of multiple resolutions to problems to create a compromise.

7. There is the potential of a guaranteed income as a senior.
In the United States, there are several safety-net programs in place to help seniors at all socioeconomic levels. Social Security checks, Medicare, and Medicaid all offer seniors guarantees of health insurance and income. There is no longer a need to have children support aging parents. Even seniors who didn’t save anything for their retirement can still be comfortable in their homes because of programs like these. Similar arrangements are often found in the other developed countries of the world too.

8. Let’s not forget about the senior discounts which are available.
It always feels good to get something you need at a lower price than what others receive. Discounts which are offered to seniors are designed to help you save money when you might have a limited, fixed income. They’re also a way for seniors to stay active and engaged with services that meet their exact needs. From medication to transportation and everything in-between, there are numerous providers offering discounts in every community right now.

9. You feel a sense of accomplishment.
As the aging process continues, you can look back upon your life and feel the pride which comes when you accomplish great things. Our greatest feats in life come from the ordinary. Calming a child when they cry, preserving your marriage, serving in the military, telling a joke that made someone smile – these are the moments we treasure.

List of the Cons of Aging

1. Senior care comes at a higher cost.
As we get older, the cost for our healthcare needs steadily rises. If you find yourself needing a nursing home or an assisted living facility, the costs involved could be as much as the average person in the United States makes in a year. Private facilities are even more expense. Without insurance or Medicare, a private room at a nursing home could cost almost $100,000 per year. Even an assisted living facility charges an average of $43,000 annually. Even with long-term care insurance, some families can’t afford that price.

2. There is always a safety concern for seniors.
Even seniors who are in fantastic shape have a higher risk of experience specific health conditions. You’re more likely to break bones as you get older as calcium becomes harder to absorb. Eyesight quality decreases, which can make it difficult to drive places or maintain your independence. It may become difficult to walk. At some point, almost everyone needs some extra in-home care to maintain their lifestyle as they grow older.

3. It becomes difficult to maintain your property.
As you get older, you’ll find that your daily living activities take longer to complete. Items that are on your to-do list that were once simple fixes become elaborate chores. Trying to find a contractor to help you take care of the lawn, clean your home, or even change your light bulbs can become a major headache quickly. There are the costs of hiring helpers to consider as well. That’s why many seniors rely on the help of their family to ensure that they can stay in their homes as long as possible.

4. Aging brings about an increase in loneliness.
Seniors must make a proactive effort to maintain their social connections. Even when Facebook and other online conversations, texting and video calls are not the same as a face-to-face conversation. There are many health problems associated with loneliness too, which makes the sadness of being alone more profound. If you only have a few trusted friends now, then you’re at a greater risk of experiencing this issue as you get older.

5. It is more difficult to get around as you get older.
If your health declines to the point that you are no longer authorized to drive, then you’re forced to rely on public transportation, family, or friends to help you get around. Trouble with your legs could make portions of your home inaccessible to you without costly mobility upgrades. Even simple tasks, like getting into the bathtub, become dangerous chores as you get older. You could hurt yourself reaching for a plate in an upper cabinet. That’s why aging requires you to take a different look at life’s perspectives.

With the biggest pros and cons of aging under consideration, one must balance the wisdom and experience that time provides us with an increased risk of suffering from various health issues. There are challenges to mobility that must be considered, especially when looking at a person’s social needs. When balanced appropriately, aging can be a wonderful experience. That balance is achieved when efforts are made in our youth to plan for such a future.

Andrew Jackson was elected in 1829 to serve at the 7th President of the United States. He gained fame before the presidency from his work as a general in the U.S. Army. Jackson also served in both houses of Congress before he was eventually elected President. His two goals while in office were to support the rights of the “common” man while fighting against a “corrupt” oligarchy.

Jackson believed that his actions would help to preserve the Union that had formed up until that point.

He was born to a Scotch-Irish family in the colonial Carolinas. He also served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, then purchased a plantation and became a slave owner. His work during the Battle of 1812, the Creek War, and the formation of the Treaty of Fort Jackson are often touted as some of his greatest accomplishments.

These are the pros and cons of Andrew Jackson as President that are worth examining in closer detail.

List of the Pros of the Andrew Jackson Administration

1. Andrew Jackson helped to expand the powers of the Presidency.
In May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law. This legislation expanded the powers of the Presidency to speed the removal of Indian communities in the eastern United States and territories that were west of the Mississippi River. He also issued the Nullification Proclamation, which affirmed his belief that municipalities and states were not allowed to nullify federal laws. If Jackson didn’t like a law or court ruling, he simply found a different way to get the job done.

2. His work during nullification prevented war from breaking out.
In 1832, the Nullification Proclamation was formally issued. He immediately threatened to enforce the proclamation with military arms if required. Compromises in Congress helped to diffuse the situation eventually, but his administration firmly believed that the U.S. government was the supreme power in the land. Jackson promised that he would do anything it took to enforce that supremacy. Although nullification is often seen as an issue related to slavery, it was first brought up in 1828 because of tariffs placed on foreign manufactured goods.

3. He was the first self-made wealthy individual to serve in office.
Andrew Jackson was born into poverty in 1767. He worked hard for everything he had. He fought in the Revolutionary War at the age of 13, served as a major general in the U.S. militias, and studied law and politics to carve out a lucrative career for himself in Tennessee. During this era of U.S. politics, you either had to come from money, have a family name, or be wealthy on your own merit to achieve any type of success. Jackson is often recognized as the first man to achieve the latter option.

4. Jackson helped to eliminate the Bank of the United States.
The Second Bank of the United States was authorized on a 20-year charter in 1816. Although Jackson is often credited with eliminating the bank, the charter actually expired, and his administration didn’t renew another one. What his administration did do was weaken the influence that the bank had on the economy. Jackson rejected the findings of Congress that the bank was legal, deciding instead to veto the re-charter bill and then issued an executive order to divert funds into his own select private banks. The Second Bank of the U.S. was liquidated in 1841 after going private after its charter expired.

5. He expanded voting rights in the United States.
Before the Jackson Administration, the right to vote was extremely limited. Even if you were a white man, there was a property qualification written into the law. If you didn’t own property (some states required a specific type of property), then you could not vote. The fight for the “common” man to vote became the foundation of what would become known as Jacksonian Democracy. It would become a coalition of laborers, farmers, and Irish Catholics that would eventually call themselves the Democratic Party.

6. Jackson supported the independence of Texas.
On March 2, 1836, Texas declared that it was formally independent of Mexico. The document focused on the rights of Texans to pursue life and liberty, while also emphasizing property rights within the document. Jackson helped to support that movement, then helped to provide resources when war broke out in the new nation in the years afterward. In 1837, he officially recognized their independence, but didn’t address the idea of annexation since Mexico was threatening the U.S. government over such an action.

7. The Jackson Administration terminated the national debt.
If there was one thing that Andrew Jackson hated more than anything else, it was debt. By January 1835, his administration gathered everyone in Washington to celebrate a momentous occasion. The United States had completely paid off its debt. It was the only time in U.S. history where the country was debt-free, and it lasted for exactly one year. To clear the debt, Jackson sold off a lot of the land owned in the West. He blocked every spending bill that was possible. In 6 years, his administration paid off $58 million.

8. Andrew Jackson helped to form the first Eastern treaties for the government.
Before the Jackson Administration, all of the international treaties for trade and commerce were with Europe. Even when trade was conducted in Africa or in Central and South America, it was usually performed through a European advocate. In 1833, Jackson commissioned Edmund Roberts to serve as a special agent for the government. The efforts of Roberts would result in the first treaties with several Asian governments, including an important agreement with the government of Siam, which is now known as Thailand.

List of the Cons of the Andrew Jackson Administration

1. He showed a disregard for the Constitution and its restraints.
One of the most famous encounters that Andrew Jackson had with the rest of the U.S. Government came when Georgia expelled the local Cherokee Indians from their land. The lawsuit from that action reached the Supreme Court, where it was ruled that the actions of the state were unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson decided that he was going to ignore the order from the court. When asked about it, Jackson reportedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision, so now let him come enforce it.”

2. Jackson seized millions of acres of tribal land for the United States.
If you look at the major accomplishments of the Jackson Administration, many of them involve his supportive actions in taking land away from Indian tribes. His perspective was likely shaded by his own bias, built around the assignments he was given while serving in the military. Jackson was the commander of military forces during the Creek War, which is seen as an extension of the War of 1812, since the Red Sticks Creek tribe were supported by the British. Jackson violated treaties, refused court orders, and drove people out of their homes. Even Davy Crockett refused to support many of these actions.

3. The closure of the Bank of the United States results in a weaker currency.
Andrew Jackson served as President of the United States from 1829 to 1837. His “war” on the banking industry was mostly bark instead of bite, as he withdrew funds from the national bank to deposit them in state and local banks. For the poor and debtors who had the Bank of the United States as a listed creditor, this created more issues for them instead of less. That eventually led to the value of U.S. currency dropping, which would eventually bring about the Panic of 1837. That year is still considered one of the largest economic setbacks in the history of the United States.

4. His voting rights expansion was an effort to win a second election.
When Andrew Jackson served as President, the United States was going through a turbulent period of politics. The formation of the two-party system changed how Republican and Federalist campaigns were held. Conventions were held to nominate political candidates for the first time. Because the wealthy and elite would never vote for Jackson after his anti-bank platform, the expansion of voting rights to the “common” white man was as much a political ploy than anything else. Most of the votes he gathered for his re-election bid wouldn’t have been cast in the election before.

5. Congress authorized military force for resolving conflicts during his administration.
Because of the issue of nullification, Jackson needed authorization to deploy the military on U.S. soil to back up his threats. The Force Bill was signed into law on March 1st, 1833, which authorized Presidential use of the military to enforce federal law at the state level. Even Jackson’s former Vice President at the time, John Calhoun, objected to the law. Calhoun supported the state’s right to nullify tariff legislation, so he would move to the Senate to serve instead. In 1844, he would become the Secretary of State for John Tyler, where Calhoun continued the support of an annexation of Texas to support the “right” of slavery.

The pros and cons of Andrew Jackson as President are debatable in retrospect. History tends to shine a light more on the accomplishments than the negatives. He may have cleared out the national debt, but he also required gold and silver sales for government land, which helped to crash the economy. Jackson helped to define the powers of the modern President, but he did so at the expense of many people. How you see these actions will likely dictate whether or not you see Andrew Jackson as a good President.

There are several different processes available right now that offer animal cloning as a possibility. In some species, cloning occurs naturally because of asexual reproduction. Identical twins are sometimes referred to as clones, though this is technically inaccurate because their DNA is different.

With artificial cloning, we can clone for genetic purposes, therapeutic purposes, or reproductive purposes. Most animal cloning pros and cons refer only to the reproductive process, where an animal which is a genetic duplicate of its parent is produced.

The practical application of animal cloning is a relatively recent science. Dolly the sheep, created by Keith Campbell and Ian Wilmut, was born in 1996. Cumulina was the first cloned mouse, born in 1998. Since then, we’ve cloned pigs, rhesus monkeys, cats, rabbits, cows, horses, rats, mules, dogs, camels, deer, fruit flies, and even a buffalo.

It is an idea which dates back to 1938 when Hans Spemann proposed the idea of replacing the nucleus of an egg cell with the nucleus of another cell, then to grow an embryo from that egg.

The first known attempt to clone an animal occurred in 1952, when Thomas King and Robert Brigs attempted to clone a Rana pipiens frog.

As science continues to progress, it is essential that we continue to examine these animal cloning pros and cons.

List of the Pros of Animal Cloning

1. Animal cloning creates desirable traits in each species.
When we clone animals, what we’re doing is an advancement of the natural evolutionary cycle. We are doing what others have done through selective breeding for more than 1,000 years. It is an opportunity to create specific traits in an animal that are desired for some reason. We might use animal cloning to create dairy cows that offer more milk. We might clone chickens to improve egg production. Pigs could be cloned to produce more meat for butchering.

2. We can introduce specific outcomes through animal cloning.
There is a protein which is called antithrombin that circulates in the blood. If you don’t have enough of it, then your risk of developing a blood clot is higher. When clots form, they can lead to strokes, heart attacks, or worse. Through the process of animal cloning, goats have been bred in such a way that they now produce this protein on their own. We can then clone these animals to produce more of this medicine, which creates a supply that is theoretically endless.

3. It is a chance to keep memories alive.
One of the fastest-growing segments of the animal cloning industry involves dogs and cats. Pets are often integrated as full-fledged members of our family. Losing them is one of the most painful experiences that we endure. They really are our best friends without asking for much in return. Our pets keep us active, offer love, and even provide essential services. With the cloning process, there is an opportunity to provide continuity, even during moments of grief.

4. Cloned animals don’t have cloned personalities.
Even if the reproductive process involves cloning, the animal which is created is still a unique individual for their species. Their personality, memory engrams, and preferences are all different. Some people might believe the soul of the parent transfers to the child, but there is no science to back up that fact. Personalities develop in stages based on the temperament of the animals and people around, the character of the creature, and the overall environment. The DNA of a cloned animal might be the same, but their personalities are very different.

5. We get the chance to preserve endangered animals.
Humanity was able to save the Przewalski’s horse through a stroke of luck. In 1945, there were 13 horses that were captured from a wild herd. Two of the animals were hybrids. Under a collaborative effort between the Zoological Society of London, where the horses were kept, and scientists in Mongolia, the population went from a low of 9 horses to over 300 in the wild. Standard breeding practices helped to save the species.

What about the Northern White Rhino? Sudan was the last known male of the species, and he died in March 2018. There are now only two female rhinos of the same subspecies. The only way to save them now is through animal cloning.

6. Animal cloning provides additional research benefits.
The science which is used to create animal clones can be applied to other medical and veterinary applications. As we learn how to clone animals successfully, we could use those techniques to learn how to clone organs for human transplant. We might be able to clone specific cells that offer medical benefits. It has sparked an advancement in stem cell research that includes deriving these cells from adults. Because of this scientific practice, we now know that an adult cell’s nucleus has everything needed to produce another member of the same species.

7. We would be able to ease future food supply shortages.
By the year 2050, most experts agree that there will be at least 9 billion people living on our planet. Many estimates say that there will be 10 billion people here. That means we are going to need a lot more food to eat. Push that figure out to 2150 and the United Nations suggests the planet may need to support 20 billion people. Through the science of animal cloning, we would be able to stabilize our food chain. This process could reduce the pressure placed on croplands to produce, which might preserve human life in times of pestilence or famine.

8. It could provide a process to restore lost species to the planet.
When looking at the history of our planet, we know that at least 1.9 million different animal species have gone extinct. With the presence of humanity, the rate of extinction is estimated by National Geographic to be progressing 1,000 times faster than it should be. Thanks to the science behind animal cloning, the preserved DNA of extinct animals could be artificially brought to term as an embryo to restore their presence. If you’re thinking that sounds like a plot from Jurassic Park, you’d be right. What was once considered science fiction is approaching “science fact.”

9. Animal cloning could eradicate problematic diseases from the Earth.
Influenza is arguably one of the deadliest diseases to ever hit humanity. It originates from various animal species, including pigs and birds. When a new flu virus strain makes it way into humans, the results are devastating. In 1918, over 50 million people were killed because of the influenza epidemic, with 20% of the global population infected by the virus. Some people died within hours of symptom development. Through animal cloning, we could eradicate some of these diseases before they even have the opportunity to develop.

10. It is currently believed to be safe to eat cloned animals.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States ruled in 2008 that it was safe to eat meat and consume dairy products from cloned animals. They made their ruling for livestock animals, such as goats, pigs, and cows. That makes it possible for food producers to research cloning processes that could improve human nutrition.

List of the Cons of Animal Cloning

1. Animal cloning is an expensive process.
The current cost to clone an animal which is used for livestock is about $20,000 per instance. If you want to clone a champion racehorse, the basic cost is over $150,000 for each attempt. You could ask someone to clone your cat for you if you have $25,000 to invest. Cloning dogs is more expensive, priced at $50,000 and above. Since the millions that were spent to clone Dolly the sheep, science has helped to bring cloning toward mainstream society ever so slowly. At the moment, however, it is an opportunity which is still available to only a select few.

2. From a reproduction standpoint, every other method is better than cloning.
Animal cloning is the least reliable method of reproduction right now. Numerous defects occur during the cloning process that are potentially fatal to the offspring. Even if you were to front the $20,000 to clone your favorite cow, there is a 25% that the animal will suffer from “hydrops,’ which causes edema. About 6% of cows are oversized, which may threaten the life of the mother. It took hundreds of attempts to produce the first successful animal clone. Today’s rates of success are better, but it is still far from a perfect science.

3. Even with modern science, animal cloning is usually unsuccessful.
Animal cloning is often unsuccessful, even when everything goes right during the process. Only 5% of cloning attempts are ever successful. When there is an unsuccessful attempt, serious interventions are often necessary if the offspring is born alive. Most cloned animals that are born alive are eventually euthanized to prevent their suffering. Cloning increases the risk of birth defect development, sensory impairment, and disease susceptibility. The success found with Dolly the sheep are incredibly rare.

4. Successful cloning reduces genetic diversity for the species.
We already know what happens when a lack of diversity occurs in the animal kingdom. When each animal of a species is genetically similar to one another, then one viral mutation can create an extinction. Every percentage of extra diversity matters to the survival of a species. Take the cheetah as an example. 99% of these cats share a similar genetic profile to one another. If a disease would affect the entire species for some reason, you would still have a 1% potential survival rate. With animal cloning, you wouldn’t even have that.

5. The current process of animal cloning destroys numerous embryos.
For the first successful cloned animal, there were 277 cloned embryos implanted. From that number, only 13 pregnancies were triggered. Those results in one successful birth, which would be Dolly. Only 17% of somatic cell nuclear transfers develop into embryos. About half of the embryos are eventually implanted successfully using current techniques. In each series, only 1 or 2 animals are ever successfully born, with 18% of them dying at birth. Over half die within the first month.

6. Animal cloning creates abnormal pregnancies for the mothers.
About 45% of the pregnancies which are achieved through cloning are lost in either the second or third trimester. These losses are uncommon in a “traditional” pregnancy, which means the cloning process threatens the welfare of the mother. There are additional abnormalities to consider as well, such as dystocia, delivery interventions, and defects which threaten the life of the mother. There is a stronger chance that the mother and fetus will die when animal cloning is practiced compared to the likelihood of a healthy birth.

7. A majority of births from cloning require a C-section to complete the process.
When mothers are artificially inseminated to produce offspring, the animals required a surgical intervention less than 1% of the time. When surrogate mothers are implanted with an embryo produced by animal cloning, they required a cesarean section for delivery 54% of the time. Another 30% of the animals required a non-surgical intervention to deliver their offspring with a cloned embryo. That means there are extended veterinary costs to consider with this process in addition to the actual costs to create the embryo clone in the first place.

8. Healthy animals who are clones can experience unexpected health complications.
Cloned animals which are able to live 6 months or longer, appearing to be otherwise healthy, have been known to experience life-threatening health consequences. Many of their health issues arrive unexpectedly. Studies on cloned cattle have also found that their reproductive capabilities may be impaired for both male and female clones. There is very little data available for older cloned animals as so few have made it beyond the first few years of life. Even Dolly the sheep died when she was 6 years old.

9. Cloned animals may not be able to produce any offspring.
Cloning companies have recently provided some anecdotal data concerning the likelihood of an older animal being able to reproduce. Although the offspring from a clone will typically have fewer health problems than their parents, there is still some physical evidence to suggest that the next generation is not biologically “normal” when compared to offspring created from traditional processes.

10. Reintroducing extinct animals would have unforeseen consequences.
If we introduce new life to our planet (or even restore it), then we create new opportunities for bacteria and viruses to develop. We have no way to know what ancient bacterial strains might do to human health. There is a very real possibility that our animal cloning processes could go too far, putting all of us at risk for an unknown health concern for the future. The threat of the flu is often enough to send people running for vaccines. Imagine what an unknown viral agent or infectious disease would do to the world.

11. Animal cloning is a process which could lead to human cloning.
Although there have been claims of successful human cloning attempts, there is no supported scientific evidence to suggest that a cloned human embryo has moved out of the world of fiction. Cloning humans is more difficult than other mammals because of where spindle proteins are located to the chromosomes. Removing the nucleus removes those proteins, which interferes with cell division. As technologies improve, however, the science behind animal cloning could lead to human cloning and the plethora of moral and intellectual arguments which would come with it.

12. There are striking similarities between stem cells and cancer cells.
From a medical research standpoint, there are many who believe that it is worthwhile to look at the use of embryonic stem cells as a way to treat diseases in humans. There are also experts in this field who are concerned about the ways that stem cells and cancer cells are similar. Both types have an ability to proliferate indefinitely. After 60 cycles of division, stem cells can even develop mutations that might lead to cancer. That means we have a long way to go before knowing what science could do one day.

13. Therapeutic cloning requires the destruction of an embryo.
When using therapeutic cloning, embryos are destroyed to provide treatment to another animal that is suffering from disease. Although this process receives some objection, the threat that people see with this part of animal cloning science is how it could be applied to humans one day. Human therapeutic cloning would require the destruction of an embryo in the test tube, ending the potential viability of life. This process could be a way to prevent unwanted genes from being passed along. It could also create an abundance of problems as embryos are destroyed for personal use.

14. Cloning technologies will always have an ethical argument against its use.
Even if we develop animal cloning technologies to the point where the process is cheap, safe, and effective, there will always be an argument against its use. The process of cloning could conflict with many of the long-standing societal and religious values that people hold. In some ways, it may even infringe upon the idea of having an individual identity. Although it may help with animal sterility issues, save species from extinction, and other unknown possible benefits, this debate will not go away.

These animal cloning pros and cons carry a unique set of benefits which must be carefully considered as we evaluate this scientific process. There are also animal welfare considerations which we cannot ignore. At the moment, this technology is extraordinarily inefficient. That means its practice results in loss of life or a higher potential for distress. It will not improve unless we research this process further, which is also an argument why progress shouldn’t be emphasized in the first place.

Animal testing in cosmetics uses non-human subjects to examine the variables which could exist when specific products are applied. The goal of this process is to ensure the safety of humanity when new cosmetics are developed. It comes, however, at the expense of guaranteeing the safety of animals.

Even with an emphasis in place to stop animal testing in all its forms, it is believed that over 100 million animals are used for research purposes on the average year. Mice, rats, fish, amphibians, and reptiles comprise about 85% of the animal testing population.

In their publication of 2016 animal research statistics, the USDA reports that the number of animals used for testing in the United States rose by almost 7%, with public and private institutions reporting these numbers. Guinea Pigs are the most common animal used for testing, followed by rabbits, hamsters, and non-human primates.

List of the Key Advantages of Animal Testing in Cosmetics

1. It provides a research aid for new products.
If animal testing were not available, then there would be no way to test the safety of a product on organic tissues before applying it to humans. Educated guesses are not good enough for companies that must deal with legal liabilities if their products harm customers. Trial and error exercises are permitted within this type of research, which makes it possible to create advancements which benefit people. Almost every major advancement humanity made in the field of medicine and product development relied on animal testing in some way.

2. There are no suitable testing alternatives available.
People can run computer simulations and make their own projections, but this information does not substitute for actual testing. Animals are the next closest level of life on our planet, so if someone operates off the idea that human life is valued higher than animal life, testing is a logical outcome because it prevents harm to people. Untested cosmetics could be immediately harmful when applies, so animal testing verifies whether or not an item is suitable for further development or introduction to the market.

3. Animal testing improves the safety of the cosmetics.
By testing the viability of the cosmetics before going to human testing, a safer product is development by manufacturers. Although cosmetics aren’t like drug tests that could be immediately harmful to an animal or a person during the initial evaluation phases, unplanned outcomes do not bear the same legal responsibility with an animal test as they would a human test. This process is the only viable way to determine how a chemical reacts when used in a realistic way.

4. There are animal welfare benefits to consider.
Much of the attention in the world of animal testing focuses on the potential for harm. There must also be a focus on the potential for good. The animals which are in testing facilities are fully vaccinated, provided food, water, and shelter, while being able to have a limited amount of independence. Keeping an animal in a cage is the same at home as it is in a lab. Many of the distinctions drawn are based on purpose, not application, and that point must be driven home. We are able to save lives, including animal lives, because of the information obtained through these testing processes.

5. It provides an opportunity to research lifespan applications.
In some countries, the average human lifespan is above 80 years. For the average mouse, their lifespan might be 3 years. With animal testing processes, it becomes possible to research cosmetics at different stages of life to determine what dangers might apply. For some products, the effect of chemicals on multiple generations can be studied. That information can then apply to human needs, which offers us all a greater level of protection.

6. We kill more animals for food than are harmed by animal testing.
In the United States, over 60 billion animals are killed for food each year. There are more turkeys killed for food (232 million) than all of the animals that are even estimated to be in animal testing facilities. Although some might see this as a false equivalency, the debate around animal testing for cosmetics often focuses on the harm done to the animal. If we are indifferent to how animals meet one human need, but not another, then that says more about our personal perspectives on the issue than it does about the morality of testing.

List of the Key Disadvantages of Animal Testing in Cosmetics

1. Animal testing harms the animals – there’s no getting around that fact.
One of the most common animal studies is called the LD50 test. It stands for the “lethal dose 50%” test, where animals are given test substances until half of them die. Although this process has never been scientifically validated, it is used as a standard to determine acute toxicity levels for human use. Even with cosmetics, the application of an LD50 test is accurate to just 65%. In comparison, human cell-line tests, are up to 80% accurate. In high-dosage groups, animals might endure bleeding, rashes, eye contact, forced inhalation of products, and suffer from paralysis, seizures, and convulsions.

2. Many of the items tested by the cosmetics industry are never used.
The safety of products measured by animal testing often results in development practices that are abandoned. If too much harm comes to the animal, then that increases the chance of harm eventually happening to a human if the produce were to be used. In many instances, animals are asked to sacrifice their lives to determine the safety of a product that may never make it out of the development stage.

3. Animal testing claims are not regulated in the United States.
Companies are free to say whatever they want about their approach to animal testing in the United States. Claims of animal testing are not verified. Anything can be placed on the product label of the cosmetics in question without oversight. Although finished products used to be tested frequently on animals, thankfully the practice is decreasing in the industry. Just keep in mind, however, that a cosmetics company might not test products on animals, but their supplier could still be doing it.

4. It is an expensive testing process.
The average cost to care for a single chimpanzee published by Save the Chimps is $16,000 per year. To care for the average dog, the average cost is $9,000 per year. A single rat or mouse will cost several hundred dollars per year. Now multiply those costs by the 100 million animals that are rotated through the animal testing industry each year. Companies are literally spending billions of dollars on antiquated research practices when that money could be used for research and development procedures that are more effective.

5. The results from animal testing are not reliable.
Failure rates from animal research activities in all industries is above 90%. Recent data published by the Food and Drug Administration suggests that the failure rate of drugs tested on animals could be as high as 96%. Even in 1985, when there was a surge of global animal testing for cosmetics and other products, 86% of the tests conducted on animals created failures. For that reason, the United States is the only major region in the developed world where major bans on animal-tested products does not exist.

6. Exemptions are available for animal testing laws.
Just 4% of the animals involved in testing schemes for all industries were protected by current welfare laws. Facilities are able to apply for exemptions from these laws if they can show their products have the potential to help people in some way. Most companies govern themselves with animal testing compliance as well, appointing self-supervision committees that report only to themselves about the work that is being done. Without a direct inspection of the organization and its processes, it is impossible to know who is in compliance and who is not.

7. For some, the goal may be a sadistic pleasure in harming other living creatures.
In the late 20th century, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a paper which stated that there were non-animal testing options available that were faster, cheaper, informative, and more valuable than the information that animal tests provide. In the same paper, however, the scientists in the NRDC publicly advocated for a reversal of the European ban on this testing because they need to “test these products on living things.” If the information is cheaper and better with non-animal testing, then what other purpose is there to continue with tests on animals?

8. Ineffective practices may invalidate the results achieved.
If poor research techniques are used when testing cosmetics on animals, there is the possibility that the data would be incomplete or inaccurate. You can achieve false positives or negatives based on the approaches used by the researchers. Because many activities in this area are self-directed, it is easy enough for corruption to enter the research arena to create results that support bringing a product to market.

9. There are loopholes available for the cosmetics companies.
Even though the European ban on animal testing for cosmetics made headlines, what hasn’t is the loopholes which are available to organizations. Chemicals which come from an industry other that beauty and cosmetics are still fair game. Pharmaceutical and chemical testing are still permitted. If you’re using anti-aging products, then there’s a good chance that the information for the product came from the realm of animal testing in pharmaceuticals.

10. Cosmetics are not a necessity of human life.
Although animals are slaughtered by the millions every day for food, there is a different purpose. Humans need food to survive. Heme iron is absorbed readily, while non-heme iron from plants is not. Cosmetics are a different industry altogether. You need food to eat. You don’t necessarily need a cosmetic product. Our question is incorrect. We often ask if animals can reason, or if they can communicate with us. We should be asking ourselves this: do animals suffer?

The advantages and disadvantages of animal testing for cosmetics can be somewhat misleading. For the cosmetics company, being involved with testing is a public relations nightmare. It is an expensive process that is imprecise. The issue is the list of grandfathered chemicals. Although these items are listed as safe, they only got that way because of animal testing. Even if a product is cruelty-free and not tested on animals now, it may be based on information obtained years ago that was based on animal testing.

Until the 18th century, arranged marriages were considered normal, with family members (usually grandparents or parents) setting up the arrangement. Some exceptions occurred in various cultures, such as the Gandharva marriages, but otherwise, it was an expectation to follow.

Even through the 1950s, arranged marriages were still prevalent in the United States. Within the Japanese-American culture, they were sometimes called “pictured-bride” weddings because the two parties involved would only exchange pictures until they met on their wedding day.

When countries increase their economic value, there is a trend of increasing individualism which rises too. Added social mobility combines with these factors to reduce the need for an arranged or placed marriage. Even so, some cultures still follow this practice, including family groups in North America and Europe.

Here are the pros and cons of having an arranged marriage.

List of the Pros of Arranged Marriage

1. It eliminates the stress of trying to find a life partner.
Although choice is limited when an arranged marriage occurs, the individuals involved are left with fewer questions. They’re not forced into a dating scene or mandated to defend their values to someone. People with this type of relationship often come from similar backgrounds, ethnicities, or cultures, which gives them common ground. With the certainty included with this arrangement, each person is free to pursue other personal interests instead of spending time search for that special someone.

2. It keeps parents involved in the relationship.
When society encourages individualism in the selection of a marriage partner, the family unit becomes secondary to the intimate relationship. Cultural norms, such as asking a father for permission to marry, become unwritten rules that encourage inclusion. There is no requirement to follow them, however, and that can leave parents, grandparents, and other family members get to remain involved.

3. It creates harmony within both families.
Marriages are classified into four basic types: forced arranged marriages, consensual arranged marriages, self-selected marriages, and autonomous marriages. Wealthy nations promote the latter option, which means the parents or guardians of both individuals are not consulted and have no say in the final arrangement. This process forces two families together which may not be compatible with one another. Arranged marriages are based on the principle that each family receives a benefit from the relationship formation.

4. It keeps people rooted in their family, culture, and ethics.
People change as they age. Our experiences, ideas, and relationships all form the foundation of who we are. After an autonomous marriage, husbands show an increase in conscientiousness, while wives show a decrease in openness. Husbands become introverted, and both partners reduce their social networks. You also become less agreeable in marriage, while wives show higher levels of emotional stability. With an arranged marriage, the negative aspects of being together are tempered because there is advance preparation involved. You stay rooted in who you are as a culture because there are more similarities than differences involved.

5. It reduces conflict when children are involved.
Families often separate when children come into the picture because of the differences each person (and family) has in how they should be raised. Differences in religion, spirituality, education, and discipline enforcement lead to conflicting ideas that negatively impact the child. With an arranged marriage being the foundation of the relationship, any children produced from the union have a higher chance of having parents who agree on these aspects of life, which eliminates much of the harmful conflict that children sometimes see as being their fault.

6. It is possible to find that special someone.
Many people in an arranged marriage go into the first days of their relationship as if it were a business partnership. They have contracts to fulfill, so that’s what they do. Their relationship becomes the fulfillment of needs which both families have. Although there is always an element of risk to any relationship, most people can find their own niche to enjoy within an arranged marriage which allows them to find happiness in life. Love at first sight is even possible, though unlikely.

7. It places the emphasis of the relationship outside of emotion.
For non-arranged marriages, the emphasis of the relationship is based on the emotional reactions each person has to the other. The formation of an arranged relationship is a little different. Romantic love is still a priority for many, but it is not the primary element being pursued. Couples in this situation place their first emphasis on creating a successful partnership, which allows both of them to commit to a long-term process. That effort creates more stability for both people to enjoy.

List of the Cons of Arranged Marriage

1. It increases the risk of child marriage.
When children are married, especially younger than the age of 12, then they are not prepared for the idea of free choice. Although not practiced in Europe or North America, the poverty in Eastern Asia, Latin America, and Sub-Saharan Africa force families into a choice between school or a merging of their families for pure survival. The arranged marriage ensures the financial security of their child, even if it puts them into a place of physical harm.

2. It places the burden of financial responsibility on the daughter.
When communities are impoverished, every mouth to feed becomes a continuing liability. Most cultures that struggle with poverty have societal structures which make it difficult for women to find gainful employment. That means a daughter becomes the greatest financial burden a family can bear. By arranging a marriage as quickly as possible, the monetary obligations are reduced, which creates less food insecurity for everyone in the household.

3. It limits the choice of a life partner.
This negative component of arranged marriages applies to migrant minority ethnic populations. If the majority population of the nation where they live avoids them, stereotypes them, or follows segregation or apartheid policies, then arranged marriages become the only way to continue family traditions. Up until 1980, the Sikh families of Canada practiced arranged marriages for this very reason. You still see them in Hasidic Jew populations. Up until the 1960s, Japanese immigrants to the U.S. also engaged in this practice. Although it guarantees a marriage, it reduces the choices available for life partnerships.

4. It eliminates the dating phase of life.
There is something to be said of putting yourself out there for someone to see if you and they are compatible with one another. Although breakups are emotionally challenging, the process of courtship creates more possibilities that a good match will be found. You get to explore partnership and personality types to see what you prefer and what you do not. Although the divorce rate for arranged marriages is widely reported as 6% (compared to 55% of all marriages in existence right now), your relationship is not treated as a business partnership.

5. It makes couples feel alienated from their families.
When there is a rush to start a new union, everyone in the family wants to be involved in the relationship in some way. For the couple getting married, it can feel like your wedding isn’t really yours at all. In an arranged marriage, some families may not allow the bride, the groom, or both parties to have any say in what happens. Everything about the day may come at you in surprise, which creates an unsettling experience for those involved.

6. It avoids the issue of personal accountability.
In self-selection and autonomous wedding structures, the couple bears a majority of the responsibility for the quality of their relationship. They’re forced to work together to make things work. With an arranged marriage, there is no responsibility required by either party. If the marriage doesn’t work, it’s the parents or grandparents to blame instead of the married couple. Many families will interfere in the marriage at multiple levels as a proactive way to prevent the blaming process from starting in the first place.

7. It eliminates love from the equation.
Although there are numerous arranged marriages which involve love, emotions are not a priority when this relationship is first arranged. No one cares if you can or will fall in love with the other person. As long as the families get along, and there is a mutual benefit to the relationship, then that becomes the definition of success. That means one partner can find themselves trapped in great misery because they don’t like their partner and don’t want to disappoint their family.
The divorce rates for arranged marriages are much lower than other types, but it may be due to a sense of obligation or responsibility more than a lack of overall compatibility.

8. It forces you to live with a stranger.
Some arranged marriages allow the prospective partners to meet before their wedding day. Many of these relationships do not. That means each person steps blindly to the altar, wondering who it is they are going to meet. Instead of marrying your best friend, you’re getting involved in a contract with a complete stranger. The amount of time it takes someone to develop feelings through traditional courtship in the wealthier nations is similar to the time required for an arranged couple to get to know one another.

9. It increases the risks of mental health issues.
With an arranged marriage, there is the possibility that individual preferences will be sacrificed for the greater good of everyone else involved. A decision to ignore oneself for the good of others creates a higher risk for psychological damage over time. If meaningful coping mechanisms are not introduced, unhappy people can suffer from anxiety, stress, and depression at higher rates. If their partner is cold, uncaring, or abusive, their risks of mental health concerns rise even higher.

10. It allows men to have more control than women typically.
In the cultures where arranged marriages are considered standard, the men in the relationship have more control over the women. That occurs because the man is seen as being the leader of the family and household. And the issue is even worse for people who identify with the LGBTQIA+ community, as they may be forced into a relationship with someone that they’re not attracted to at all. In these situations, the affected parties may be entering a relationship that lacks independence.

11. It takes time to establish trust.
Most couples who go through an arranged marriage don’t have the time necessary to get to know one another before exchanging vows. For the first weeks, months, or even years of the relationship in some cases, severe trust issues make it difficult for the relationship to work. There may not be any intimacy, physical contact, or conversations involved. Even when each partner knows what is expected of them, there is a higher risk of experiencing an unfulfilling life.

These arranged marriage pros and cons are just key points to consider. It is up to each person and family to decide what is the best course of action they should take. The only exception to that statement would involve forced child marriages, which are exceptionally condemned by the international community. More cultures than not practice consensual arrangements like this, so exploring how to improve that relationship with these observations will become a top priority.

If you’ve ever watched the Star Trek franchise on television or film, you may have seen a species called the “Borg.” Instead of being a standard culture, the Borg use technology to absorb relevant information about others into their own society. When they are encountered, there is a brief instructional warning offered: “You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.”

What the Borg do in Star Trek is not that different from what today’s significant cultures and societies on our planet due to niche ethnicities. When the larger society absorbs the smaller one, this process is also referred to as assimilation. The people with the “alternative” culture are forced to adapt to the practices, activities, and expectations of the larger nation.

When it happens through tourism, work visas, or temporary visits, the process of assimilation is easy to dismiss. If it happens on a broad scale, however, assimilation feels like a piece of humanity disappears

These are the biggest pros and cons of assimilation to consider.

List of the Pros of Assimilation

1. It improves security at every level of society.
When immigrants are forced to assimilate to a new culture, then they are asked to set aside their own beliefs and expectations to follow what is desired in their new home. An example of this occurred recently in Germany when Chancellor Angela Merkel attempted to ban women from wearing a burqa. The British proposed the idea of an integration oath being taken by immigrants that would be enforceable. Assimilation isn’t always about race. It is sometimes about providing opportunities to others in exchange for safety.

2. It creates more employment opportunities for immigrants.
Most immigrants recognize that they must work hard for whatever opportunities come their way as they settle into their new home. Even with this personal perspective, the income dynamics in a society without assimilation are far different from those who practice it. People who decide to assimilate into a new society have more opportunities for employment because they’ve learned a new language, adapted to new customs, or use their experiences to promote better outcomes. That reduces the risk of poverty, improves educational opportunities, and helps them establish a firm foundation for growth.

3. It offers protection to those who need it.
Assimilation makes it possible for people to seek asylum or political protections when there are safety concerns at home. By proving they know what is required to assimilate into a new culture, immigrants (legal or otherwise) provide evidence that they’ll provide a positive impact to the overall society. In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act granted legal status to almost 3 million people in the U.S., with 85% coming from Mexico, because of their ability to assimilate into the new culture.

4. It improves the overall health of the immigrant.
Assimilation may cause some families to abandon certain traditions, but it may also encourage them to get rid of practices which are inherently unhealthy in the first place. Even when celebrations of community cohesion, life-cycle transitions, or local traditional values practiced for generations are involved, there is no guarantee of success.

Female genital cutting is a wide-spread practice eliminated through the requirement for assimilation. There are numerous societies where a preference for sons is so deeply-rooted that daughters are abandoned, left uneducated, or simply murdered. Early marriage is a tradition abandoned through assimilation as well.

5. It improves perinatal health.
Assimilation requires modern medical practices to be used instead of traditional techniques. That improves perinatal health while decreasing maternal and infant mortality rates. UNICEF released a comparison in rates that showed why this is such a benefit. In 2016, 1 in every 22 infants in Pakistan died before the age of 1 month. For Japan, which has the lowest mortality rate in the world, only 1 death in 1,111 births occurred. That means a child born in Pakistan is 50 times more likely to die in their first 30 days of life compared one in Japan.

6. It creates more tourism outreach opportunities.
Assimilating people into a new culture creates new opportunities to promote tourism to the rest of the world. Families of those who immigrate to the new country are encouraged to visit (assuming they pass security checks). Friends of those who resettle can have similar opportunities. At the same time, the changes being experienced by the family embracing the new culture create changes in their close family and friends that impact local communities across the globe as well. This process creates positive change for many around the world.

7. It improves local production levels.
As people mature in life, they are less likely to take low-paying, hard labor positions. They want to earn what their worth with the skills they’ve learned over time. Assimilation makes it possible for others to come into communities to work the jobs which others may not want. That makes it possible for employers to offer sustained production, improve access to services, and promote better welfare for their customers. At the same time, there are opportunities to provide wages, benefits, and new economic impacts through those who are willing to assimilate to the new culture.

8. It gets everyone onto the same page at an early age.
Nation-building occurs within the walls of the schools. Starting as young as kindergarten, the practice of assimilation helps people to see that a country is shaped by the various parts which compose the whole. Students are taught the mainstream values they’ll need to promote a healthier community-based outlook over time. Even when people come from drastically different cultures, the teaching of a standard set of values, characteristics, and features promote a stronger mutual identity.

9. It helps people overcome their natural differences.
There are physical differences between men and women that define roles for many in society. Natural differences in learning capabilities, intelligence, eyesight, and physical capabilities or disabilities create definitions of opportunity at the individual level too. When a society decides to embrace assimilation, they’re encouraging everyone to integrate themselves into a community which functions only when everyone works together. It’s a practice which shows people that they are better together compared to when they are working on concerns by themselves.

10. It creates opportunities for acculturation.
Acculturation is defined as the interaction of different cultures that influence one another while remaining mostly the same. You might be Irish, but you enjoy Mexican food, and you’re encouraged to interact with the traditions of both components in life whenever you see fit. It’s a way to experience what different cultures and ethnicities provide without requiring people already present in mainstream society to change their ways. You get to learn more about the strengths of everyone while sharing common ground.

11. It provides a sense of unity to everyone involved.
The process of assimilation strengths individuals because they have unity in purpose within their communities. This allows more people to be actively engaged in numerous activities that go beyond employment. Volunteerism, public service, and mentoring are all strengthened when there is a process of assimilation in place for society. It unifies personal identity at the regional level, promoting stronger revenues while encouraging people to help one another when someone requires assistance.

List of the Cons of Assimilation

1. It may force behavioral changes through legislation.
Until the Wheeler-Howard Act in 1934, the U.S. attempted to assimilate Indians into American society without any regard to their culture or historic traditions. Even when this law passed, there were two territories (Alaska and Hawaii) and one state (Oklahoma) exempted from the process of setting aside reservations where self-governing could take place. The tribes in Oklahoma had already had their land titles extinguished and properties allotted, so no initial chance at sovereignty was possible.

2. It causes people to lose their family traditions.
Even though families stay intact (most of the time) when assimilating into new cultures, there is no guarantee that their traditions will be accepted or allowed. Imagine an entire community that celebrates Christmas, but then an immigrant family comes with their personal celebrations of Kwanzaa. Would everyone else start to celebrate the new traditions? No. The expectation would be that the new family disregards their traditions to join with the majority.

3. It reduces our diversity.
When people from different backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and philosophies come together, humanity grows stronger because of it. Assimilation sees things differently. It says that “sameness” is our greatest strength, so it works to limit alternative perspectives. Even though teams who are diverse outperform non-diverse teams by 35%, people fear what is different because it is unknown. We allow assimilation to occur because we’re scared of what change would to us if we’re in the majority.

4. It may force people to change their identity.
In the 19th century when a surge of immigration to the United States occurred, many families had their names changed due to the process. This likely happened because shipping clerks in their home country wrote their name on a manifest incorrectly. Shipping companies were motivated to send people who would be accepted by American customs because rejection meant they had to ship people back for free. Inspectors would match incoming answers to the manifest, which then switch the name of the person involved. Some people are forced to change who they are because they want to give their children a better life.

5. It may create higher levels of unlawful societal activities.
Assimilation sometimes forces people into a situation where they must break the law. Sometimes that legislation which governs their activities is unjust, such as segregation or slavery. That doesn’t stop the majority government from enforcing the laws. According to the Atlanta Black Star, there were several laws in place which restricted how slaves could behave in America.

• They would receive 39 lashes if found possessing a weapon or lifting a hand against a white person.
• They could not have their side of the story presented in a court of law.
• They were allowed to travel only with written permission of their masters. Attempting to run away would subject a person to the death penalty.
• They could not own property because they were considered property.

To do what was right, many people fought these laws, often giving up their lives because they could not endure their forced assimilation.

6. It can exclude students who come from different learning styles.
Schools, colleges, and universities often lean toward the practice of a learning style based on what fits with mainstream society. The curriculum presented focuses on only the students who are able to adapt to that culture. Even students who do not adapt well from within the culture become excluded by this practice, which often results in poor tracking, lower test scores, and less overall success. If a student comes from a different learning style because of their family culture, they may not be able to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

7. It promotes segregation.
The goal of assimilation may be to encourage more success throughout society, but it does so by creating one group that is superior to another. Even if practices like slavery are forbidden, there are households with strong socioeconomic opportunities and ones that have very few chances at success. Descriptions of fairness often begin with the “same beginning chance to find happiness.” People who assimilate the best are given more opportunities as a reward, which disregards the efforts of everyone else.

8. It may endanger some people.
Assimilation asks individuals to leave essential cultural traditions behind by encouraging new traditions. Although the practice can benefit some, there may be dangers involved with such actions as well. What is suitable for one family is not always suitable for others, even during the establishment of a new cultural identity. Without some measure of safety involved, the practice may be as harmful as it is helpful at the individual level.

The biggest pros and cons of assimilation look at the needs of the individual balanced by the needs of the society. There are some places where the culture will assimilate new ideas brought to it, creating a “melting pot” of different ideas and events which leads to increased diversity. You will also find places and moments in history where assimilation was used as a way to oppress others.

Whether one decides to accept a new culture or not is a personal choice. That is something we must not forget.

If you make rice on a regular basis, then the convenience of a rice cooker cannot be ignored. You just measure the correct amount of rice you wish to cook, add some water or broth, and then a little butter or oil. When the rice cooker cycle has completed, you’ve got fluffy rice to enjoy.

Here are some of the pros and cons to consider when owning a rice cooker.

List of the Pros of a Rice Cooker

1. It cooks the rice for you automatically.
You’re not required to fuss over the rice cooker like you would in a saucepan or other cooking vessel. Just measure the rice and liquid, set the lid, and turn the machine on. The rice cooker will then shut off its cook mode when the cycle is complete.

2. It keeps your rice warm.
Once the rice cooker finishes its cooking cycle, most models offer a warming feature. That allows you to keep the rice warm without overcooking it while you finish up the rest of your meal.

3. It is easy to clean.
Although there are some exceptions, many countertop rice cookers offer components that are safe to put in the dishwasher.

List of the Cons of a Rice Cooker

1. The bottom rice can burn if you’re not careful.
Once the rice begins to cook, it is a good idea to stir the rice every 2-3 minutes until the cooking cycle is complete. It isn’t necessary, but if you stir a few times, you’ll prevent the bottom layer of rice from being burnt.

2. It uses non-stick technologies.
Because the container for the rice uses non-stick technology, you must use specific utensils when scooping out the rice. If you use metal utensils, the surface may be scratched, which then leads to an inferior cooking experience over time.

3. It may not turn off.
Some of the entry-level rice cookers will turn on when you plug them into a receptacle, then turn off when you unplug it. If you forget to remove it from the power source, then the unit will always stay on.

These rice cooker pros and cons are easy to manage with some proactive efforts. Keep them in mind as you shop to make sure you purchase the best model to fit your needs.

Built across the Nile River in Aswan, Egypt between 1960 and 1970, the construction was based on the successes of a lower dam built in the region. The goal was to maximize the utilization of the river while controlling flooding, improving water storage, and encouraging hydroelectricity development.

Before the dam was built, even with the old embankment dam in place, flooding of the Nile occurred in the late summer months. In past generations, this process brought needed nutrients to the soil, which made the region ideal for farming. Since the flooding was variable, low-water years could produce devastating famine and drought.

With Egypt’s population growing and technology access improving, the need to support farmlands, stabilize food cycles, and offer cash crops to the global export market facilitated the need for this dam.

Designed by the Hydroproject Institute based in Moscow, these are the pros and cons of the Aswan High Dam to consider.

List of the Pros of the Aswan High Dam

1. It provides a majority of the energy needs of Egypt.
During a typical operational year for the Aswan High Dam, about 15% of the total electrical supply available to the country comes through this project. When it first came online, almost half of the available electric power came through the dam. The electricity generated by the dam is environmentally friendly, offers predictable cost structures, and is cost-effective to maintain. At total capacity, the 12 generators with the dam are each rated for 175 MW, which means the facility can produce 2.1 GW of electrical energy.

2. The Nile River is now much easier to navigate.
With the waters of the river controlled, navigating along the Nile is easier than arguably ever before in history. Major shipping lanes throughout the Nile Valley are now possible because of water control. That makes Egypt an important shipping nation now that more ports are available to access. New business opportunities for imports and exports are now possible, creating a better economic climate for the local population.

3. It improves the safety of water-based professions.
The Nile River has long been a source of fishing and early aquaculture for the Egyptian civilization. Before the Aswan High Dam was built, people working in marine professions around the world were faced with daunting wildlife problems. Nile crocodiles who eat fish could deviate from the menu to eat humans. Even today, about 200 deaths each year are attributed to these animals.

The hippopotamus is native to the area and may have been worshipped by the ancient Egyptian cultures. They’re also ferocious, with early populations believing the animal held special spiritual powers. King Tut may have even been killed by one.

Then there is the threat of mosquitoes. With more standing water available because of Lake Nasser, the threat of malaria is quite high.

4. The dam improved water access for all Egyptians.
Despite the displacement issues involved with the construction of the Aswan High Dam, the effort did improve annual water access to the country. Before the formation of Lake Nasser, annual water quotas for the region were 48 cubic kilometers. In the 40+ years after the dam was brought online, the annual water quota improved to 55.5 cubic kilometers. With better water availability, the impact of drought years on the Nile valley is reduced, which means there are fewer risks of food insecurity, health issues, and dehydration.

5. It allowed Egypt to reclaim lands for use.
Although the formation of Lake Nasser did cause land loss which required resettlement, there were over 2 million acres of land reclaimed by Egypt with the additional water availability. Despite river degradation downstream with changes to sediment flows, there are more acres being successfully farmed after the dam’s construction compared to the agricultural activities happening before it.

6. There are reduced issues of schistosomiasis because of the dam.
This disease, caused by parasitic flatworms, infect the intestines or the urinary tract. Symptoms include blood in the urine, abdominal pain, diarrhea, and abdominal fluid collection. Long-term infections may cause bladder cancer, liver damage, and kidney failure. After 15 years of dam closure with the Nile, some issues of this disease have disappeared from upper Egypt altogether. Improved irrigation practices to reduce snail influences have promoted reductions of this disease too.

7. Downstream levels of the Nile have been relatively unaffected.
When the Aswan High Dam was first constructed, the general consensus was that the river would lose up to 10 meters in river-bed levels downstream. The actual drop was just 0.7 meters, with some areas seeing a drop of just 0.3 meters. Although the red-brick construction industry that used sediments has been negatively affected, the actual river process has remained relatively unchanged except for the sediment issue.

8. New industries came to take the place of affected industries.
Instead of the traditional red bricks formed in the region for construction, manufacturers and producers are now creating a sand-clay mixture using mud-based technologies for bricks. With the new techniques, the sediment build-ups offer the possibility of new industries to supply jobs that disappeared with the construction of the Aswan High Dam. New fishing industries, agricultural jobs, and service industry positions became available because of this project as well. It has forced some households to change what they do, but it has kept economic opportunities around.

List of the Cons of the Aswan High Dam

1. The project forced over 1 million people to be relocated.
When Lake Nasser flooded lower Nubia because of the Aswan High Dam, up to 120,000 people had to be resettled in Egypt and Sudan. Another 70,000 Nubians in Sudan were resettled from Wadi Halfa, where their new home had such a different climate that they struggled to adapt. They were eventually settled into 25 planned villages. Another 50,000 Nubians were moved up to 10 kilometers from the Nile into new village units as well.

2. Access to critical archaeological sites was limited by the project.
After the completion of the Aswan High Dam, over 20 different architectural complexes and monuments were threatened by the spillages from Lake Nassar. Several of the sites had to be moved through UNESCO efforts to preserve them, including the Abu Simbel temples and the statue of Ramses the Great that was at the Great Temple. Not only did the dam project cost over $1 billion to complete, millions more were spent to save the “major” artifacts. Many of the Nubian civilization archaeological sites were lost to the reservoir which would eventually become a new lake.

3. It changed how sediments flow to the sea.
The Nile River famously flooded its surrounding valley each year to provide cropland assistance to local farmers. Even in the Old Testament of the Bible, farming practices are discussed in Egypt in some of the early stories. This ancient river provided a sediment filter that allowed life to take advantage of its nutrients. Over 124 million tons would be brought to the Mediterranean Sea each year to promote marine life. Now 98% of that movement is trapped behind the Aswan High Dam.

4. Fertilization issues are now present in Egypt.
Now that the silt sits behind the dam, there are concerns about being able to farm in the Nile Valley. Nitrogen fertilizers are required to help the crops grow now, with lime-nitrate the most common method used to provide nutrients to the soil. Although the two-mile dam’s design was to improve farming consistency, the agriculture changes have left potential hazards that were unexpected to the original designers.

5. It encourages coastline erosion around the delta.
Because there is more water pressure around the Aswan High Dam at the delta than before when the waters flowed freely, the shoreline in the region experiences higher levels of erosion. At the current rate, the coast erodes by up to 575 feet per year. Even on a year of minimal erosion, over 400 feet is lost. That shift requires Egypt to spend more on reinforcing the lakeshore and the high-value properties around the region.

6. Local groundwater tables are influenced by salinity.
Water salinity has become an issue as well, making it difficult to use the waters around the dam to irrigate the fields because the nature of the liquid has changed. Before the dam was built, the groundwater levels fluctuated in the Nile valley by up to 9 meters per year. When the summer evaporation began, the water was too deep to allow dissolved salts to be pulled to the surface. Without the same flooding fluctuations, soil salinity increases created negative impacts on local crop yields.

To correct this problem, subsurface drainage systems were installed over the course of 30 years at the cost of more than $3 billion.

7. Sediment collections are lowering the reservoir’s water storage capacity.
The expected water storage capacity of Lake Nasser is 162 cubic kilometers, with 31 cubic kilometers of dead storage at the bottom of the lake. In less than three centuries, if nothing is done about the sediment issue, the annual load will fill up the entire dead storage volume currently available.

8. Mediterranean sardine captures are down by 50%.
In 1962, the sardine catch off the coast of Egypt in the Mediterranean was 18,000 tons. By 1968, the total catch was just 460 tons. By 1992, the biomass recovered enough to produce a catch of nearly 8,600 tons in 1992. The reason why the sardines moved away from their usual grounds is unknown, but the changes happened at the same time the effects of the Aswan High Dam were being studied. Nature does have the ability to adapt, especially when given enough time, but in this circumstance, a full recovery has still not occurred.

9. It turned the water supply into a political tool.
With access to water improved for all of Egypt at the expense of a few, the Nile river was turned into a political tool more than ever before in history. Changes to how the water flows forced local farmers to begin depending on product access and irrigation rights to grow crops instead of relying on the natural cycles of the river. That increases the cost of crops, limits viable farmlands, and gives the local government more pressure to exert on people because they control access to their livelihood.

The pros and cons of the Aswan High Dam are often up for debate because the cause-and-effect of its presence is not entirely known. Sardine catches in the Mediterranean are down after the installation of the dam, but it also supports more water availability and electricity for the country. More algae now grows on the Nile, which increases the cost of drinking water treatments, but irrigation costs are down. More time is needed to determine how effective or ineffective this project will be.

There are several different parenting styles practiced around the world. One of the most common in use is the authoritarian parenting style.

This method of parenting is often expressed in the phrase, “Because I said so.” Parents demand compliance from their children with this style. Rewards and consequences are then offered based on the acceptance levels offered by the child. Descriptions of it compare the authoritarian parent to a king, queen, or dictator. Their rule becomes the law of the household.

Every family is a little different. Some parents even use multiple styles with their children to create the home they want. Here are the pros and cons of the authoritarian parenting style to review if you’re thinking about this option.

List of the Pros of the Authoritarian Parenting Style

1. Kids listen to authority figures better with authoritarian parents.
Children who come from authoritarian homes are often easy to spot. They are the kids who always obey their teachers and other adults. There is no questioning of the authority figures in their lives. They instead focus on quietly and peacefully completing the tasks given to them, no matter how difficult the circumstances may be. Many of these children are described as being the “best-behaved kids” others know, which reinforces the behavior at home and in public places.

2. Children want to do the right thing when they grow up with this style.
Authoritarian parents tell their children what the correct choice and incorrect options are with each decision. This discussion shows kids what it means to be “good” and “bad” based on the decisions they make. Because these conversations happen proactively, before a choice must be finalized, kids growing up in this parenting style often seek out proactive solutions to the problems they believe are coming their way. That creates a child who is less reactive, which means they’re also less likely to be impulsive.

3. Kids with authoritarian parents are goal-orientated.
Because children grow up with rigid expectations and rules with this parenting style, they’re more likely to set goals for themselves. They understand that if they complete Task A, then work on Task B, they’ll be rewarded with something they want. That sets the foundation for persistence as an entrepreneur, ambition in hierarchy environments, and a desire to achieve success because it reflects well upon them and their family.

4. Children from authoritarian households focus on safety as a top priority.
Authoritarian parents create rules for outside of the home too. Their goal is to keep their kids as safe as possible in whatever circumstances they happened to find themselves going through. They’ll practice situations with their children to help them become confident in their own decisions when a problematic situation arises. This process helps the kids know what choices to make, while it gives the parents extra confidence in their children and how they make choices.

5. Kids with authoritarian parents learn responsibility at an early age.
Children with parents using this style will always try to make what they perceive is a moral choice. Although their skill development may lack in certain areas, depending on the rules outlined in the home, there is resiliency built into the approaches used by each child. They create thrills for themselves by achieving goals or participating in parent-approved activities. These kids don’t go out shoplifting or creating trouble because there is no long-term reward available when doing so.

6. Children receive instructions without confusion with this parenting style.
Other forms of parenting allow kids to figure out problems on their own. This creates confusion for the child when they’re unsure of how to proceed. With an authoritarian parent, there is no confusion. Kids are given a clear set of expectations to follow, often accompanied by specific step-by-step instructions which help them complete their tasks. Everyone in the family fits into a role, which offers a sense of satisfaction for a job well-done when everything and everyone works as they should.

7. Kids from authoritarian homes keep their word.
Authoritarian parents are often misrepresented as encouraging perfectionism. This parenting style recognizes that mistakes happen. What is expected after a mistake involves two specific steps: making things right, and learning from the experience. Kids are expected to find ways to make people whole if they’ve wronged them in some way. They’re taught that each mistake is a learning opportunity, which gives them a chance to be a little better the next day. It may cause issues for kids who make frequent mistakes in the same area as this will be seen as “not trying” by most authoritarian parents, but it does create an environment where responsibility is a priority.

List of the Cons of the Authoritarian Parenting Style

1. Kids become angry in authoritarian homes.
Children with authoritarian parents are living in constant fear. Although they have an idea of their expectations, and often do their best to follow them, they don’t know if their mom or dad will change their mind. Even with strict standards and rules in place, kids don’t always understand what it is they did wrong. There’s no explanation given as to why specific expectations or activities must be accomplished in the ways demanded. Over time, children often grow up feeling angry about their life, their circumstances, and their relationship with their parents.

2. Children in authoritarian homes have lower self-esteem levels.
Kids who interact with authoritarian parents grow accustomed to completing orders. They base their self-esteem on how their parents perceive them instead of how they see themselves. Because this parenting style focuses on the negative choices more than positive choices, children often think of themselves as “never being able to do anything right.” They think in black-and-white absolutes where failure is what happens most often. Their primary focus is to obey, then be quiet.

3. Kids in authoritarian homes see society differently.
Children who have authoritarian parents are rarely afforded the “luxury” of thinking for themselves. They’re always told how to do things, when to work, and what schedule to follow. The opportunities to share an opinion or find a creative solution are minimal. That turns these kids into adults who have an altered sense of reality when dealing with the rest of society. They become closed-minded people because they were never allowed to be open-minded in the first place.

4. Children are forced to rely on the rules.
Parents using the authoritarian style will create lines that cannot be crossed when following the rules. Every behavior and choice are subjected to an evaluation by the expectations offered. There is a right and wrong choice for every situation, even though there may be no good or bad choices in a real-life situation. Because kids are forced to rely on the rules to make choices, uncertain situations with no clear-cut answers create hesitation from the child, which may hamper how they learn when compared to kids from other parenting styles.

5. Kids from authoritarian homes often rebel.
Children see the privileges that other kids earn (or naturally have with permissive parenting) and they want the same thing at home. Most authoritarian parents will not allow a permissive environment, setting the stage for rebellion. Older kids sometimes break the rules at home to test limits or to see how that choice makes them feel. When the child becomes an adult, they may pursue activities which they know their parents disapprove of as a way to declare their independence. When this type of situation occurs, it is not unusual for the parent or the child to have an estranged relationship with the other family members.

6. Children are not given any flexibility in the desired outcomes.
Authoritarian parents don’t look at the outcomes a child achieves. They look at the processes used to get to the outcome. Even if their kids are successful, this type of parenting will initiate consequences if specific steps are not followed. That focus prevents creativity, innovation, and relationship development within the family structure. Even worse, if there is a conflict, the child knows immediately that their parents will hold them responsible because authoritarian parents rarely see themselves as being at fault.

7. Kids with authoritarian parents see bullying behaviors as normal.
The most severe cases of bullying occur when one child perceives another as not being good at a specific sport. Children are bullied most often when they’re perceived to self-identify with the LGBTQIA+ community. That happens more often in authoritarian homes because the child sees someone else their age not living by the same rules. Social attitudes from the home manifest themselves at school. Authoritarian parents hold their children to the same standards, so they do to others what their parents do to them. It isn’t seen as “wrong” because they’re “encouraging” others to meet expectations.

8. Children receive few tangible rewards with the authoritarian style.
Many parents who practice the authoritarian style work on the idea that a job done well is rewarding enough. Actual displays of affection or tangible rewards for following expectations are rare. The primary reward for these kids is that they don’t have a consequence headed their way for something. Because there is no tolerance for any misbehavior, many kids feel like they’re isolated from their family, that their parents don’t care about them, unless they end up doing something wrong.

9. Kids don’t know who develops the definition of “right.”
Authoritarian parents often come from homes with a similar parenting style. They were brought up that way, so they’re going to bring up their children in the same way. The issue within these families involves the definition of “right” and “wrong” in each circumstance. Many definitions are based on real-life experiences or past situations, but it is possible for that definition to shift sometimes too. When kids have authoritarian parents who don’t create set guidelines for their kids, every situation becomes a reprimand. That can lead to abusive situations which place the child in danger.

The pros and cons of the authoritarian parenting style show us that following the rules “no matter what” creates a sense of morality, but it comes at the price of individuality. A balanced approach which permits self-expression and creativity, combined with some of the rule-setting expectations, often works the best when creating a balanced vision of the future.

The first beauty pageants documented in history are found in the traditions of the European Festivals held during the Medieval era. One example of this structure is the selection of the May Queen held during the celebrations which occur during the first week of May. What we think of as the modern beauty pageant got its start in 1839 as part of a reenactment joust, while the first American pageant was attempted in 1854.

It wouldn’t be until the 1920s that beauty pageants in the United States began to shape society. The first Miss America was crowned in 1921, earning 16-year-old Margaret Gorman a bounty of $100 for winning. Before then, most events that were promoted as beauty pageants were deemed too disrespectful.

As Miss America grew in popularity in the 1950s, various beauty pageants began to be added to the yearly schedule. Miss Universe debuted in 1952, along with the Miss USA competition. Miss International started in 1960. Miss Teen USA debuted in 1983, while Miss Earth began in 2001.

These beauty pageants pros and cons show us that although society has accepted the format and benefits of these events, they are still not without controversy.

List of the Pros of Beauty Pageants

1. They are a way to promote societal connections.
Beauty pageants happen at local, county, state, national, and international levels when looking at the competitions from a U.S. perspective. There are similar competitions held at similar levels internationally as well. These events bring people together who are passionate about the same things, building bridges between cultures and societies with their mutual love of pageantry. It is a way to enjoy some healthy competition, promote good causes, and learn about one another.

2. They are a way to encourage self-discipline.
To be successful in the world of beauty pageants, one must stay dedicated to the various processes which allow them to be competitive. Beauty is only one element of this process. Contestants must practice their public speaking skills, which can be used in various occupations and industries. They must be courageous and vulnerable as they stand before others on the pageantry stage. Talents and gifts are celebrated while charitable causes are promoted.

3. They are a way for today’s youth to find new opportunities.
Most beauty pageants offer scholarships as an award for doing well in the competition. Large pageants may offer sponsorship opportunities, an annual salary, or additional career-building options that allow participants to carve out their own path in life. When growing up in an underprivileged socioeconomic household in the United States, academics or athletics are the two avenues where a child can “change their stars.” Beauty pageants offer a third opportunity to find success.

4. They encourage self-confidence.
The modern beauty pageant does more than celebrate outward beauty for the men and women who compete in them. They encourage personal self-confidence, wanting competitors to get to know their true selves. You must be authentic to be successful in today’s world. Pretending to be someone or something you’re not does create an impenetrable ceiling that limits success. Getting to know the “real you” allows competitors to pursue whatever opportunities they wish in life – whether they win the pageant or not.

5. They promote local economic opportunities.
During the Miss America beauty pageants, more than $30 million in positive economic impacts come to the community which hosts the event. Every pageant creates opportunities for tourism, including competitions like the annual Dairy Queen pageants held in the Midwest. Different counties come together to host the state-wide competition. Families from a specific county come together to host their local events. Businesses benefit each time as they get to meet the needs of each visitor.

6. They encourage charitable work.
Because of beauty pageants in the United States, charitable organizations like the Miss America Foundation are possible. “The Miss America Foundation strives to change lives and influence young women across the country and around the world,” their homepage says. “We proudly offer academic and community-based scholarships for undergraduate and graduate studies, as well as endowed scholarships.”

Contestants often promote their own charitable causes when they’re active in the world of beauty pageants too. Miss America 1999 because the first winner with diabetes and publicized the use of an insulin pump. She advocates for diabetic research, education, and treatment because of her work in pageants. In 2013, she earned a Doctorate of Public Health degree.

7. They encourage healthy competition.
There will always be winners and losers in our world. It’s a harsh reality that sometimes gets shielded in our efforts to promote equality. Just as winning doesn’t define a person’s success, losing does not define an individual’s character either. The healthy competition found in beauty pageants allows us to teach people of all ages that what we learn in life tends to be more about the journey we go on together than the prizes we either win or the opportunities we lose. Through these lessons, sportsmanship is practiced, success is celebrated, and there is encouragement offered readily.

8. They promote friendships.
When competing in beauty pageants, the contestants come together during the journey. Many become lifelong friends, despite the competitive nature of the event, because everyone has the same intention at their core. Most competitors seek out the diversity offered in the moment, embrace the different personalities, and everyone becomes each other’s biggest supporters. There will always be those who compete only to win, but it is more common to see people competing because of how it changes them and the rest of the world.

9. They help competitors overcome issues with shyness.
Being shy is a natural part of life for many kids. There are times, however, when shyness gets in the way of being yourself. For beauty pageant participant Chantelle Wright, competing helped her to deal with this issue. “We bought me some makeup and cut off about 18 inches from my waist-length hair, and created a more stylish hairdo,” she wrote. “I was willing to work hard if I could just be less shy.”
Even though Wright didn’t win her first beauty pageant, she said that it started her on the road of being more poised in various social situations.

10. They promote self-discovery.
There are numerous reasons why beauty pageants are an attractive competitive outlet for some people. It may be the chance to play “dress-up” in real life with the formal gowns. Some people are attracted to the glitz and glamor of public events, hoping to find success on larger stages over time. Sometimes it is the spotlight at any level which gives those who compete the energy they need.

11. They can lead to other paying jobs.
Although the pressures to compete are enormous, beauty pageants also give people a chance to find a career later in life. Winning major competitions will open doors to modeling jobs, university scholarships, and apprenticeship opportunities that may not be available to others. Even when the clothing options seem inappropriate, there could be options to swap clothes with a different model or accept a job with a different brand, store, or fashion line. When you’re involved in this world, you are still in control, even when others may think otherwise.

12. They offer a chance to connect to personal spiritual practices.
Chantelle Wright suggests that all beauty pageant contestants read the Bible for ideas about character qualities that are worthy. Look in the lives of family members, acquaintances, and friends. Look at how other people achieved success, the influences that helped to get them there, and then attempt to replicate it in your own life.

List of the Cons of Beauty Pageants

1. They place emphasis on beauty over talent.
Although Miss America 2.0 made significant changes to the beauty pageant format in 2017, there is still no getting around the fact that these events are based on society’s perceptions of beauty. It creates a divide in the society which reinforces the idea of the “haves” and the “have-nots.” To the average person (man or woman), the physical requirements of beauty pageants are not obtainable. They either don’t have access to needed resources, family responsibilities, or don’t meet the public standards of “beauty.”

2. They are expensive.
Information published in 2014 about the cost to chase the Miss America crown put the price tag at $15,000. Even chasing local competitions creates a cost for families that can be several thousand dollars per year, depending on the number of events which are entered. There are also the makeup costs, gown expenses, and travel requirements to meet when wanting to be competitive in modern beauty pageants. Unless sponsorships are available, households with a median HHI may struggle to keep up with the financial demands involved.

3. They are judged based on societal bias.
When women compete in beauty pageants, it is often those who are taller that win. The Miss USA competition has had just two winners who were 5’ 4” in height. Most of the competition winners are between 5’6” to 5’11”. Although there are no height requirements published to enter a competition, judges (especially at major events) look for modeling potential and marketability as part of the final award. That structure makes it difficult for petite women to be successful, even when they meet all other beauty standards.

4. They enforce the traditional rules and perspectives in society.
For the “Miss” beauty pageants, such as Miss America or Miss USA, there are specific entry rules which must be followed. That includes an age limit, which may be as low as 26 years old. Some competitions exclude women who are married or are mothers. Some competitions require winners to avoid negative public attention to their image, otherwise their title could be revoked. Vanessa Williams famously had her Miss America title forced into resignation in 1984 for photographs which appeared in Penthouse without her permission.

5. They force women into specific demographics.
Because the large competitions are less-than-inclusive with many of their entry requirements, many women are forced to compete based on their physical or lifestyle demographics instead. You will find niche beauty pageants offering competitions for women who are shorter than 5’6”, for women who are plus-sized, and for married or older women. Some of these pageants are even associated with the larger ones, such as Ms. America with the Miss America competition. Although they allow women to compete in an event they are passionate about, the only reason why they exist in the first place is due to the exclusionary nature of beauty in modern society.

6. They promote unhealthy physical habits.
Because physical beauty is one of the primary judgment factors of beauty pageants, competitors often restrict their diets to keep a slim profile. They might combine those poor eating habits with longer hours at the gym working out, which furthers the health issues experienced by some competitors. Since 1952, women competing in beauty pageants have had their average BMI move into the underweight range, while the average woman saw their BMI move into the overweight range.

7. They require a lot of preparation time.
When competing in a major beauty pageant, most contestants who want to win will spend a minimum of one year preparing for the event. For male competitions, up to 3 years of preparation time may be necessary. Although anyone can theoretically enter a competition, without a lot of physical and emotional preparatory work, the chances of success are rather slim. This process can be a major blow for people who want to get involved right away without realizing the full extent of the expectations involved.

8. They are not always as glamorous as the national events lead on.
If you have ever attended a local beauty pageant, then you know the experience is akin to watching a high school talent show. In small-town America, some local pageants may have only 2 or 3 competitors for the entire event. When the winners of these small pageants go to the larger state-wide competitions, they face the same stigmas that shorter women face in a tall woman’s world. Because they come from rural communities, they are often overlooked because the idea of a farm girl promoting the event is not as provoking as an urban woman with “class” or “sophistication.”

At every level, beauty pageants expose the undercurrents of bias which are found in modern society. There is no way to get around that fact.

9. They sexualize girls in ways that are inappropriate for their age.
Beauty pageants for children were banned in France because of how the format sexualizes children, especially girls. To stay competitive, girls as young as 8 are undergoing Botox treatments, plastic surgery, and other beauty “treatments” to help them meet society’s beauty standards. These children are taught how to wear makeup in “attractive” ways, wear swim apparel which leaves them practically naked, and then forced to deal with the message that they’re “not good enough” if they lose.

10. They create adverse impacts on self-esteem.
Activities which focus on the outward appearance of children, especially girls, at an early age create negative impacts on body image, self-esteem, and self-worth. Many children struggle with issues of self-identity after they retire from beauty pageant competitions, even when they’re still in the young teens. Combined with a struggle to be “perfect,” there can be issues with body image that lead to eating disorders over time.

“In my experience as a dietician for high-powered entertainment groups, I found that many of the young women with eating disorders were trained at an early age to value physical perfection, thinness, athletic prowess, and attractiveness,” writes Dr. Martina Cartwright for Psychology Today. “When it comes to performing, education takes a backseat. The performer’s bodies are their livelihood and less-than-perfect might lead to unemployment.”

11. They can destroy parent-child relationships in the name of competition.
Many families begin the beauty pageant circuit at a young age. Children involved in these events are forced to perform and behave flawlessly without getting a chance to enjoy the fun that comes with being a kid. If the children fail to meet expectations while in this environment of enormous pressure, the adults involved will sometimes mock the kids as they try to express themselves. There are tantrums, tears, and negative emotional outbursts all the time with young children and beauty pageants because most are not mentally capable of handling this pressure at an early age.

12. They allow the parents to reap the financial benefits.
For the PEARL Girls beauty pageants, the message is clear from the very beginning. “Every contestant is invited to attend an optional FREE pre-pageant confidence camp where you can receive instruction on poise, the pageant walk, stance, public speaking, social etiquette, table etiquette, and much, much more!” The message is clear: you’ve got a better chance to win if you attend this event. Then the awards, sometimes as much as $50,000, are put into the care of the parents. The young competitors receive the tiara and sash, but then may have no guarantees about receiving the other rewards they’ve earned.

These beauty pageants pros and cons suggest that with a few shifts in societal perspective, these competitions could become a healthy outlet for many women. When we are inclusive, we are stronger as a society. Diversity allows us all to benefit from individual strengths while our weaknesses are tempered. There is nothing wrong with wanting to win. We must also remember there are lessons to be learned in winning and losing which benefit us all.

When a country is supported by a bicameral legislature, it means the government consists of two separate chambers or houses within a specific body of legislative oversight. About 50% of the world’s governments, including the United States, are supported by this structure. The U.S. Congress is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate, which meets the definition of this government body.

The word “bicameral” comes from the Latin word for “camera.” The English language uses that translated word as “chamber.”

This government type intends to offer representation at the local level from a centralized representative platform. It also represents all political subdivisions and local legislative bodies with the laws, rules, and regulations it passes.

The big pros and cons of bicameral legislature structures are designed to meet the needs of everyone while providing defensive and social services.

List of the Pros of Bicameral Legislature

1. It provides a system of checks and balances for the government.
Because two chambers of the same body must approve legislation before allowing it to proceed, there are fewer opportunities to pass laws that benefit special interests or specific groups. The exact wording of the legislation must pass both bodies. That means political parties are forced to negotiate with each other, developing an outcome that isn’t perfect, but is beneficial, to most (if not all) parties.

2. It offers representation at the individual level.
The bicameral legislature design offers multiple layers of representation within government for individuals. In the United States, the House of Representatives offers it through small districts, allowing communities, small-town groups, or urban neighborhoods to choose an elected official to represent them based on their population size. The Senate then offers two elected officials per state for representation.

That’s why some states only have one representative, while some neighborhoods in cities like Los Angeles receive more than one. Each population group gets to pick who they think best represents them.

3. It creates a better system of legislation.
When one group of people sets laws for everyone, the minority rules the majority. The only path to change then left for the electorate is to choose different people to be in the government. By creating two different bodies within the same branch, officials are forced to negotiate for a better bill. Even when one political party has complete control, like during the 2017-2018 election cycle for Republicans in the U.S., factions within the party still make it necessary to negotiate.

4. It limits the abuse of power.
The primary benefit of the bicameral legislature is the limits put in place to prevent abusive power. No one group is allowed to freely run through the government to produce policies which only benefit a few. It even stops the minority from being excluded by the majority under this representation format. The checks and balances work in combination with the other branches of government to ensure better results are achieved with greater consistency.

5. It creates a national identity.
The reason why about half of all world governments use a bicameral legislature structure is that it increases their space for a representative republic or democracy. It allows diverse communities to have a positive impact on the laws being passed while offering solutions to stop harmful ideas from gaining traction. That means every community receives representation in a way that is similar, providing the foundation for a collective national identity to be practiced by everyone.

6. It allows the people with expertise to take the lead.
When there are two segments within the same body, there are more human capital resources available to the government. Although more officials equate to higher expenditures, there is the benefit of flexibility provided to the country. The people who hold the most expertise are brought onto bills which benefit from their perspective. Instead of forcing someone to work on infrastructure when their experience is in the medical field, the parties and the bicameral legislature can use the most talented people in each situation.

7. It encourages incumbents to continue running for elected positions.
Politics is the only profession on Earth where a lack of experience is viewed as a good thing. If you needed heart surgery, you’d go with the physician who had 40 years of experience over the one who has 4 years’ experience. You’d hire the golf pro with 20 tour wins over the one with none. With politics, those who know the bicameral system are more likely to engineer beneficial compromises. The structure encourages politicians to continue running to represent their districts, even if their time of service is viewed as a disadvantage by some.

List of the Cons of Bicameral Legislature

1. It increases the risk of political deadlock.
When a bicameral legislature design is used for a national government, the structure requires both groups within the governing body to approve new laws or rules. One body cannot pass legislation that becomes law. Because both chambers must approve the same wording, it takes more time to develop compromises that each side finds acceptable. If one group won’t budge, then the legislation is blocked until compromises are found, or they abandon the idea altogether.

2. It encourages officials to stop legislation.
Within a bicameral legislature, one elected official has the power to stall bills when they feel like they’re unnecessary. Although the amount of stalling is minimal, often limited to the time they can spend on the floor, it does create a roadblock that may force change. Those filibuster attempts often go against what is best for the country, such as the 24+ hour effort waged by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

In one instance, Senator Alfonse D’Amato held a 15+ hour filibuster to hold up a $27 billion tax bill in 1992 that died when the House of Representatives adjourned for the year.

3. It encourages a waste of resources.
The structure of a bicameral legislature encourages two segments of the same body to do similar activities at the same time. That means time and monetary resources are wasted when these two groups try to hash out a compromise. It is feasible to believe that the government may not pass any legislation if the two bodies are far enough apart on issues, which means everyone elected got a paycheck for not doing much. Since these funds come from taxpayers, there is an understandable dissatisfaction with the way this government system operates.

Congressional approval numbers in the United States reflect this dissatisfaction. In 2002, in the time after the 9/11 attacks, the job approval rating for Congress peaked at 84%. According to Gallup, it reached a record low of 9% in November 2013.

4. It is a system which is easy to manipulate.
Over the past 20 years in the United States, concerted efforts at the state level to redraw Congressional districts worked to alter representation patterns. A 2017 report by CNN lists extreme examples of gerrymandering, which focuses on the boundaries of the district on population groups likely to vote a specific way. The Supreme Court will take up the case in Wisconsin when less than half of the vote in 2012 allowed Republicans to achieve a super-majority in the legislature.

5. It allows for special exceptions which eliminate the say of the voters.
If something happens to an elected official while they are serving, some states allow an elected official (often the Governor of the state) to appoint someone to the vacant seat instead of having a special election. That means someone not elected by a 50% majority could appoint someone to the bicameral legislature who doesn’t represent the needs of their district, state, or region while in the government – and the people being represented wouldn’t have a say in the matter until the next election.

6. It rarely represents a system that is truly reflective of the population.
When the 115th Congress took office in 2017, about 20% of the voting members in the Senate and the House were a racial or ethnic minority. That made it the most diverse sitting government in U.S. history. Even then, the discrepancies of representation are noticeable. Even though minorities made up 19% of Congress, they are 38% of the overall population of the United States. Additional gains by women, minorities, and ethnic groups in the 116th Congress will likely exceed these figures in 2019 when new members are sworn in, but it will still be below the national figures.

These pros and cons of a bicameral legislature do create frustrations because the system design is messy, inefficient, and slow. That creates benefits at the local level, however, because new laws are rarely impulsive. The system requires large groups of people to work together, which helps to form a national identity and improve the overall outcomes.

The structures of capitalism are relatively new to global societies. Although the roots of this society option are often debated, there is a general consensus that it developed in Britain, the Netherlands, and Belgium as early as the 16th century. Because of its emphasis on collecting capital to influence economic power and wealth, it has become one of the most dominant economic systems in today’s world.

There are several different forms of capitalism used around the globe, from a truly hands-off approach to one that is closely monitored. The United States practices a form of capitalism within a mixed economy where characteristics of socialism are also present. This system protects private property, allows for capital to leverage economic freedom, while allowing the government to intervene for the social good of the public.

Because wealth accumulation is the primary point of emphasis in this society option, most decisions are made by the owner of the wealth. Private ownership of property in any form, from real estate to copyrights, is a point of emphasis with capitalism. Public rights always take a back seat to privatization.

With more than five centuries of development and innovation creating the world we see today, here are the capitalism pros and cons to review.

List of the Pros of Capitalism

1. Capitalism encourages people to achieve through their own potential.
Capitalism offers people an opportunity to use their own skills and talents to create a future for themselves. They are the navigators of their own destiny. Other forms of government or societal structures place the emphasis on the welfare of all to assign careers or force people into specific lines of work. Although some ideas flounder or fail, you can always try taking a new path when a capitalist perspective is in place.

J.K. Rowling is an excellent example of how capitalism transforms lives. She went from being on welfare to having a net worth of $650 million in 2017, according to reporting from Forbes.

2. People are involved in the choices that society makes each day.
Capitalism offers representation to the average person – if they want it. You can choose to be involved in society at any level: all-in, as you feel like it, or not at all. You’re always in control of how far you get involved with the choices being made. This structure makes self-governing feasible at local, regional, and national levels.

Because of capitalism, a person’s vote actually counts for something. You’re also encouraged to become involved in the governing process as another way to ensure the goals or dreams you have can be achievable.

3. There is more innovation available to society under capitalism structures.
People have unique pain points which affect their daily lives. Businesses earn revenues when they make positive impacts on those needs through their expertise and value. Consumers look for the best combination of relief vs. price when shopping within a capitalist environment. That is how businesses grow or fail.

When businesses operate under capitalism, the free-market system controls whether or not they find success. The firms which offer the best value propositions while consumers shop for relief are the ones who will grow. That process encourages innovation to be constantly present in society as it is the foundation of how goods or services are introduced to households.

4. It self-regulates the actions and behaviors of those involved.
Capitalism, in its purest form, encourages everyone to look out for their self-interests first. That means households meet their needs by spending the least amount to get the most value. It also means firms spend the least amount possible to develop the revenue-generating goods or services. If a group of consumers does not like the offerings of a business, then that firm with a slide toward bankruptcy.

That is how capitalism self-regulates itself. When firms act unethically, consumers stop making purchases. The firm is then left with a choice: conform to societal standards or go out-of-business.

5. The structures of capitalism promote equality.
The same rules about self-regulation apply to equality when dealing with a capitalist society. When a business refuses to embrace diversity, or it pays one group of people more than another for the same work, then consumers hold the final say. They can stop working with organizations like this to create leverage against their internal actions.

Capitalism promotes socioeconomic equality at the individual level too. Although it would be fair to say that some groups receive more chances to achieve economic success than others, the goal of this society is to give everyone at least one chance to succeed. With hard work, ingenuity, and a little luck, anyone can make a name for themselves within this type of society.

6. There is more freedom offered to individuals and corporations through capitalism.
The structure of capitalism gives each person the freedom to control their own destiny. There is a constant focus always placed on the individual within this society. Supply and pricing are driven by the demands of each demographic or segmented group. Households can choose to spend or save. People may opt to go into debt to purchase items, or they may decide to set a budget to live within their means.

Businesses often think they drive capitalism forward. That is not true. Consumers are always in control. They make all the decisions, which is why corporations and governments work hard to influence those choices.

7. Capitalism encourages people to help one another.
Although the structures of capitalism rely on self-motivation for success, it isn’t a society which is based on selfishness. Individuals must rely on one another to create mutual benefits. The employee at a bakery relies on customers for their paycheck, while the consumers who shop at the business rely on the baker to meet their breakfast needs during their commute. Every action taken in a capitalist society works to benefit another person in some way. Even when someone’s perspective is 100% selfish, their actions still benefit someone other than themselves.

8. It provides consistency through predictability.
Winston Churchill may have said it the best. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.” One could say the same thing about capitalism. The backbone of a capitalist society is consistency. You know what to expect because everyone, including corporations, is focused on the provision of mutually beneficial services. The government does not interfere or dictate production levels for goods and services. Life becomes predictable, which offers safety and security at the individual level, as the emphasis is on growth and opportunity.

List of the Cons of Capitalism

1. Capitalism encourages the rich to hoard their wealth.
The root of capitalism is the accumulation of wealth. When someone purchases real estate, buys items for their home, or shops for groceries, these activities all transfer money from one person to another, or from an individual to a business. The actions in this society may offer mutual benefits, but over time, those opportunities become one-sided.

Wealth eventually accumulates more often in the accounts of those who are already rich. When you own money, it creates more currency over time. People who spend to meet their basic needs have no way to accumulate additional funds on top of their initial transfers. That’s why the long-term outcomes of a capitalist society are always that the rich grow their wealth while the poor struggle to survive.

2. Businesses are encouraged to monopolize in capitalism.
Disruptors in the business world are defined as small companies who create innovative products which compete in value against the goods or services from larger companies. Capitalism encourages disruptors. It also encourages other companies to put those firms out of business in some way as soon as possible.

Through mergers and acquisitions, research and development, or price leveraging, the goal of a business in a capitalist society is to generate the most profits possible by obtaining the most customers. If that process eliminates the competition, then the firm can set its own prices and quality standards to maximize revenues. That structure ultimately reduces consumer choice.

3. People must produce for societal inclusion.
Work is a requirement in capitalism, just as it is in any other societal form. The only difference with this structure is that the society, not the government, hands out the consequences to those who choose not to participate. If you are not physically able to produce goods or services, then your lack of contribution eliminates your importance.

Pure capitalism doesn’t offer safety nets to people for any reason. Even if an employer acts unscrupulously, or an employee is laid-off through no fault of their own, it becomes the responsibility of the individual to correct that situation. The point of focus is always on the outcome instead of the journey to get there.

4. Growth only comes with continuing opportunities in capitalism.
Despite the advantage that everyone gets an initial fair shot in a capitalist structure, actual wealth accumulation occurs when ongoing opportunities are present. That process starts when children are in school receiving their education.

Kids who live in poverty often come to school without enough sleep. The chances are good that they didn’t have an effective breakfast. Low-income homes are at a higher risk of child abuse, family violence, poor clothing, secondhand smoke exposure, and limited experiences. According to The Edvocate, funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010, even though schools in wealthier areas see funding increases.

5. Governing prioritizes businesses in a capitalist society.
Capitalism focuses on private ownership over public possession of property. That structure requires the government to fund itself through a series of taxes and other sources of income. All wealth, including the funds earned by individuals, is subject to a portion the government declares ownership over.

When a mixed economy is present, like what the U.S. and most nations have, then the collected taxes are also used for social welfare and infrastructure programs. Because labor is the most significant expense the average corporation faces, it is the workers, not the firms or the government, assuming the highest levels of risk within the society.

6. Capitalism only works when consumers are spending.
The structures of capitalism start breaking down when individuals and businesses focus on saving money instead of spending it. Economies grow only when goods and services are bought and sold. Without new purchases, there cannot be new employment. That is why innovation is a top priority in this societal structure. Consumers must have access to continually new products to resolve ongoing pain points. Without it, they stop spending, which causes firms to stop spending, and that cycle eventually creates a recession.

7. Wealth transfers are not equal within capitalism.
People and businesses with more money have additional research and development opportunities and investments. That gives them more chances to create goods or services that consumers will want to purchase in the future. Compared to the household living paycheck to paycheck, it is the former, not the latter, who will have a better opportunity for long-term wealth accumulation.

According to a survey conducted by CareerBuilder, 78% of full-time workers in the United States report they are living paycheck to paycheck. 56% say they save less than $100 per month. Even 10% of households earning $100,000 or more say that can’t make ends meet today. Most workers say they are in debt now and believe they will always be. That is the reality of capitalism.

8. The entire society could fail if the largest corporations become unviable.
During the global recession years of 2007-2009, several systematically important businesses in the United States received “bailouts” from the government because of illiquid assets, many involving mortgage-backed securities.

The bailout list was extensive. Wells Fargo received $25 billion. General Motors received $50.7 billion and still owes the government more than $11 billion. Chrysler received $10 billion and still owes some of that balance as well. AIG received $67.8 billion. Although the government eventually made money from these payouts, without the bailout structure, the entire U.S. society could have collapsed. If the largest employers become unviable, everyone suffers.

9. Capitalism encourages a reduction in wages.
Labor fuels capitalism. It is a market where scarcity encourages higher wages. When there is a worker shortage, then employment offers must include better salaries and benefits to entice acceptance offers. That is the only time when wages increase in capitalism structures: when there is a shortage for a specific skill.

Wage recession is the foundation of this society type because businesses are encouraged to find workers who will accept lower pay while offering the firm similar results. Employees must then either accept the lower wage or find themselves unemployed. It is a principle called the “race to the bottom.”

10. Wealth accumulation is the only point of emphasis for capitalism.
The only reason to protect the environment from a capitalist’s point of view is that doing so guards their ability to accumulate wealth. This rule applies to social protections also. The energy spent in this society is always on earning more or protecting what has already been accumulated.

In the 250 years since the Industrial Revolution changed human societies, stunning changes have come to the planet. Population growth reached 400% in the 20th century, compared to the .001% growth achieved between the 1st century through the 8th century. The oceans reached record acidification levels. Global temperatures are higher. Consumption is at record levels. Some scientists believe these issues are unsustainable as we continue moving forward.

11. It eliminates competition from the market.
Larger businesses seek to consolidate their position by absorbing smaller companies who become disruptors. Employees and workers do the same thing. They firm up their position in society by increasing their skills and experiences to force other people out of the jobs market. Superior skills earn the best wages in capitalism because of their scarcity. That is how socioeconomic gaps begin forming. There is more scarcity in a skillset which can lead a Fortune 500 business when compared to someone who knows how to flip burgers in a quick-service restaurant.

12. Economic cycles tend to become extreme at both ends.
Capitalism creates an all-in boom or an overwhelming bust because of the way it cycles. That forces people to save during the good times so they can survive during the down years. Households and businesses on the edge of survival during the peak periods become the first casualties of a bear market. Even though consumers are still free to choose the goods and services they want, if there is no wealth, then there are no purchases. That is why government intervention often occurs during a strong recession. By artificially changing the market, the positive elements of capitalism can begin encouraging growth once again.

13. Inherited wealth changes the starting point.
When a capitalist society offers inheritance rights within a family, then the socioeconomic structures change. Future generations that come from a wealthy family do not face the same decisions that individuals from poor households face each day. You still gain rewards through wealth accumulation, but for those born into “privilege,” the need for work or innovation reduces or eliminated completely. That shifts the equality of opportunity which is advantageous in capitalism.

These capitalism pros and cons encourage individual development. They promote innovation while offering chances to everyone, from any socioeconomic background, to earn the success they want in life. The structures encourage hard work and dedication. Capitalism also leaves behind those who cannot participate in some way without regard to the reasons behind the lack of inclusion. That is why most capitalism markets are mixed economies which are regulated instead of being a true form of this structure.

The average child in the United States receives their first cell phone around the age of 10. Some kids receive theirs before the age of 8, while others are teens before having one. In a Niche survey on the subject, only 1% of respondents said that they’d never owned a cell phone, compared to 42% who said they got their first cell phone between the ages of 14 to 17.

Cell phones aren’t just for adults these days. With the structure of our society shifting toward information access, children must have resources available to them to be competitive at school. Teens might need a phone for their after-school job. Much like a driver’s license has become a symbol of responsibility earned, that is how parents and kids treat cell phones.

Every child is different because maturity levels differ widely. Some teens may not be responsible with their phone, but some 8-year-olds could handle the technology with proper care. That is why the debate regarding these cell phones in the classroom pros and cons are essential to review.

List of the Pros of Having Cell Phones in the Classroom

1. Cell phones offer families added convenience with communication.
When kids have a cell phone, they can take with them to school. It becomes a useful communication tool. If a parent is running late to pick the child up, they can text their kids to let them know what is going on. It is a tool which allows children to inform their parents of where they are or who they’re hanging out with that day. It helps you coordinate pickup times, juggle multiple schedules, and ensure everyone gets to where they need to be.

2. It offers a measure of safety for children who are fearful.
School shooting statistics in 2018 reached the highest levels since 1970 in the United States, with 82 incidents taking place. An incident in Parkland, Florida took the lives of 17 people. Lockdown drills are part of the usual school routine, just as air raid drills were a generation before. Kids are legitimately scared to go to school. When they have a cell phone, it gives them a chance to contact emergency authorities if an incident occurs at school. Although the odds are that a child won’t go through an incident like this, having this tool makes it easier to get through the day.

3. Cell phones are fantastic research tools in the classroom.
When students have access to a cell phone, they may have instant access to the data available on the Internet. Kids who are curious about specific subjects can perform research instantly from their desk, table, or assigned station. Teachers can encourage cell phone use in the classroom by assigning specific tasks to students too. By assigning students to groups, then using a cell phone brought by a student, this tool offers unique ways to learn that may help kids become passionate about their education.

4. It offers a verification tool to students.
Students rely on the knowledge and wisdom of their teachers and textbook authors for a quality education. With the prevalence of misinformation available today (some would call it “fake news”), there is a need for data verification in the classroom today. Cell phones offer this as a possibility. They can look up something that their teacher or textbook told them to see if the information is accurate. The process of looking up the information then lodges that data into the learning centers of the brain, making it easier to recall in the future.

5. Students have access to more information thanks to cell phones.
The information access for students before cell phones entered the classroom was limited to encyclopedias, textbooks, and personal knowledge. You had to study these texts or listen to teachers to begin learning about specific subjects. Thanks to the presence of this technology, complete access to any subject is possible at schools today. Students can learn supplemental information about anything to include in their assignments.

6. Information access takes on new formats.
Older generations used to play different games in their classroom to facilitate learning. Hangman, charades, Bingo, Pictionary, and puzzles were often used to encourage student engagement with the curriculum. Cell phones take that concept to a different level, creating games where individual skill development happens while the intrinsic rewards of playing inspire higher levels of retainment. This technology can even help students learn new a new language thanks to free lessons provided by companies like LingoHut.

7. Cell phones create opportunities for social learning.
Being connected to friends through social media creates numerous positives for students today. It can be useful when engaging in homework collaboration. Kids can play games together to foster stronger bonds of communication. It connects kids who may not be able to see each other regularly. When there is a focus on the positive aspects of communication, mixed with some parental controls to limit content access, this advantage of using cell phones in the classroom is one to consider strongly.

8. It facilitates an individualized learning process.
The learning process must be highly individualized for it to be effective. Some students require silence to focus on the information presented to them. Others need music or white noise to stay on task. When mobile devices like cell phones are permitted in the classroom, they can be useful in the elimination of distractions. Although some kids will be distracted by the other options that this technology provides (games, social media, miscellaneous apps), with proper supervision, the benefits often outweigh the negatives.

9. Cell phones offer video learning access to the classroom.
Instead of investing in smart boards or video playback devices, schools can implement a bring-your-own-device policy for cell phones. This access creates opportunities for video learning that may not be available otherwise. Specific lessons are possible with this technology, creating an individualized learning environment even with 20+ students around. Headphones even reduce audio distractions for the other students in the classroom.

List of the Cons of Having Cell Phones in the Classroom

1. Children gain access to questionable content on cell phones.
Matt Walsh notes on his blog that child-on-child sexual assaults are increasing. One factor for this may be the exposure to pornography that is available to kids who don’t have content protections installed on their devices. Among parents of children between the ages of 13 to 17, only 16% said they used parental controls to restrict cell phone use. Just 39% said they used those controls for the online activities of their teen.

Compared to computer use, those figures are staggering. 55% of parents use monitoring controls on their laptops or desktop computers at home. To avoid many of the negatives found with cell phone use, smartphones must be treated like the computers they are.

2. Cell phones open the possibility of cyberbullying.
We all encounter bullies throughout our lives. The issue with bullying will never likely go away, as most bullies act out because of their own uncertainties. When kids have access to a cell phone, then they are exposed to cyberbullying 24/7. Online apps, social media platforms, and other communication tools make it possible for cyberbullying to magnify its effect in ways that never happened before cell phones became widespread.

Having a cell phone in school increases the likelihood of bullying because of this access. Texts, voicemail, and online posts create new contact points which never existed before. When a bullying post is online, there’s a good chance it will stay there forever.

3. There is a cost factor to consider.
The December 2018 rates for cell phone purchases through T-Mobile have the cost of a simple flip phone at $75. Purchasing an entry-level smartphone is $150. Even when these costs are broken into affordable monthly payments over 2+ years, there is the data plan and other elements of cell phone ownership to consider. Having cell phones in schools creates a divide between the “haves” and “have-nots” from a wealth perspective. Those who can afford this tool can use it for educational purposes. That creates a learning advantage over those who are struggling financially.

23% of students who own a cell phone do not have a smartphone in their possession. Only 65% of rural homes, compared to 83% of urban or suburban homes, own a smartphone which could be used in school. Unless districts fund cell phones for everyone, cost factors create education gaps with this technology.

4. Cell phones may create health concerns for students.
Children who receive exposure to the blue like produced by cell phone screens may have hyperactivity behaviors triggered. This technology provides a distraction in the classroom too, as most kids see a phone more as an entertainment device instead of it being a learning tool. Exposure to electronic screens can disrupt sleep patterns, create behavioral issues, and impact student weight if the device is used for too long.

Kids who use their cell phones at school, combined with other technologies, may spend over 10 hours each day in front of a screen of some type.

5. The use of a cell phone can be addicting to some students.
Cell phones offer kids access to social media platforms, talk, text, games, and much more. For some children, access to this tool is more than a distraction. It can become an addiction that impacts their learning potential and elements of their home life.

90% of teachers who have cell phones in the classroom say that the number of students with emotional challenges increased. Teens who spend 5 hours on a cell phone have a 71% higher risk of suicide compared to those who spend one hour per day. Even for eighth graders, there is a 27% higher depression risk with social media use through a cell phone.

6. Cell phones create risks outside of the classroom too.
According to statistics reported by TeenSafe, 58% of automotive crashes involve driver distractions for teens. 25% of all accidents in the U.S. are caused by texting while driving, resulting in almost 400,000 injuries. Texting behind the wheel is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated.

AAA released a poll showing that 94% of teen drivers know about the dangers of using a cell phone while driving, but 35% admit that they still choose these dangerous behaviors anyway. Teens are four times more likely than an adult to be in an accident or near-miss because of talking or texting on their phone. In 2016, 263 teens were killed because of distracting driving.

7. Cell phones open up a world of sexual predator contacts with kids.
Safewave published statistics about teen cell phone use and unwanted contacts with strangers. They found that 1 in 5 teens in the U.S. who are on the Internet regularly have received an unwanted communication involving sexual solicitation. Only 25% of the kids who had someone contact them for sex told their parents about the issue. Because 3 out of 4 kids above the age of 12 have regular access to a cell phone, contacts through social media platforms, text, and apps have a chance to rise.

Some kids are even meeting the people who contact them. 8% of teens say they met someone in real life when they met them online. 16% have said they’ve considered meeting someone.

8. It changes how kids perceive life when they have a cell phone.
We often think of our online communications as a sort of “Internet diary,” except that is not the case. Most people only share the good things that happen to them throughout the day. The regular issues of life are then ignored. That structure creates the perspective that everyone else has a “perfect” life since each child deals with concerning issues every day in some way. That disconnect can lead to behavioral issues, distrust of their teachers, or concerns about the curriculum that is unwarranted. Cell phones in classrooms must be seen as tools, not a form of record-keeping.

9. Cell phones in the classroom may encourage cheating.
It only takes one search engine result to find an answer. If cell phones are permitted in classrooms during quizzes or testing, the temptation to cheat on an unknown answer may be too high for some students to overcome.

USA Today reports that one in three children in the United States uses a cell phone (or another device) to cheat. 60% of teens say they know or have seen others using connected devices in the classroom to cheat on exams or quizzes. Even school-owned devices created opportunities to cheat, with 54% of students saying they could access outside sides, including social media, on mobile devices that weren’t their own.

These cell phones in the classroom pros and cons cannot provide an answer one way or the other about allowing this technology in schools. Some students may find it beneficial. Others may find it to be too distracting. With gaps in use coming from rural, small school districts, as well as impoverished urban areas, there are legitimate concerns about learning gaps occurring when using this technology. The bottom line is this: it is up to each teacher to decide if using cell phones benefits the lessons they teach.

There’s no denying the fact that we live in a world which is dominated by technology. Every year, the use of new tech ideas makes the world a better place to be. We can learn more, experience new things, and stay connected with one another through technology.

Parents often struggle with decisions which involve technology access. Reporting from PBS shows that kids today are getting a lot of screen time.

• Children under the age of 8 use technology for an average of 2 hours and 19 minutes each day, which is a consistent figure over the past decade.
• Kids between the ages of 5-8 spend almost 3 hours each day with screen-based technologies.
• 98% of children live in a home which owns at least one mobile device.

4% of children in 2011 spend the majority of their screen time in front of a mobile device. By 2017, that figure rose to 35%.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children under 18 months have zero time in front of screen-based technologies. They suggest children under the age of 5 receive one hour or less each day.

If you’re thinking about using technology with your children, then here are the pros and cons to consider.

List of the Pros of Children Using Technology

1. Technology provides a source of educational entertainment for children.
Kids become easily distracted. Taking them on a long trip or keeping them engaged while you’re working as a parent is already challenging. Trying to have them learn something useful during these periods feels like an impossible task. Thanks to today’s educational apps for kids that are downloadable to most devices, these moments of downtime can promote learning opportunities.

Apps like Duolingo allow children to begin learning a foreign language. DragonBox teaches the fundamentals of mathematics. Science360 offers videos, photographs, and news stories to explore advanced scientific concepts. You’ll find spelling games and puzzles readily available too.

2. Kids have access to more information.
Access to technology allows today’s children to experience cultures in ways that could never be done before. They can watch videos showing the festivals and events held in other countries. It offers exposure to different religious and political views not always possible in a family setting. Through technology, today’s children have ways to broaden their horizons like never before. That structure helps to create a smaller world where more opportunities exist.

3. Technology prepares children for the future.
Technology will continue evolving. It isn’t going away. Exposing children to tech concepts early on prepares them for a future where they can remain productive. Programs like ABC Mouse allow children to be ready for school while promoting cognitive development. Sites like Zearn are used by schools to teach educational concepts. These tools make it possible for children to be prepared for math, reading, and other core subjects when they are old enough to be going to school on their own.

4. Using technology improves hand-eye coordination.
Programs and apps which encourage engagement further develop a child’s hand-eye coordination. Their eye-tracking improves with technology use as they follow objects on the screen or participate in application activities. These skills translate into better reading and writing while in school because the kids are accustomed to using the hands and eyes as ways to understand and communicate.

5. Language skills improve when using technology.
Kids have numerous opportunities to develop language skills because of technology. Games require them to follow specific instructions for success. Children can read e-books as a way to improve their vocabulary or stories which are entertaining. Online flashcards promote phonics and mathematical concepts. Kids today seem to have an intuitive understanding of how computers and mobile devices work. Giving them access to technology makes sense if it improves their learning capacity.

6. It creates faster, better decision-making skills.
Kids who play video games regularly reduce their susceptibility to biases by over 30% in immediate testing. Even after a 2-month break from playing them, the reduction in incidence bias is higher than 20%. According to research published in Policy Insights in the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, kids who regularly play video games make faster decisions during critical incidents in their life. Their decision-making skills are consistently good as well when compared to children who don’t play games.

7. Technology helps children learn other skills or developed natural talents.
Kids can use technology today to write or illustrate, just as children in previous generations used word processors, typewriters, and graphics tables. We have always used the technology of our era to support personal pursuits in some way. Whether a child wants to learn how to play a musical instrument, write a short story, or communicate with their grandparents using a video call, they stay connected with themselves and their family because of what is available to them today.

List of the Cons of Children Using Technology

1. It promotes a sedentary lifestyle for kids.
Information released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that 20% of school-aged children have a BMI which classifies them as being obese. The number of children struggling with their weight has tripled (similar to adult rates) since the 1970s. Using technology may promote new learning opportunities and provide more social connections, but it also encourages less movement. Spending more time indoors in front of a screen or using other technologies increases the risk of weight gain.

2. Technology creates new safety risks for children.
Netmums released a survey of 825 children between the ages of 7-16 in 2013, along with over 1,100 parents. The results found numerous safety risks for children when using technology.

• 29% of parents allowed their children to use the internet without any supervision or restrictions.
• 25% of kids online pretended to be older to get an account on a gaming site, social media, or some other forum.
• 1 in 12 kids admitted to an exchange of sexually-related content with other people, with 1 in 25 saying that they sent an explicit photo of themselves.
• 42% of kids say that they’ve seen online pornography at least once, with 1 in 16 noting that they’ve seen “hardcore” porn.

About 1 in 5 parents allow children as young as 3 years old to be online, sometimes without any supervision over the content they are seeing.

3. It creates in-person social disconnects.
Using technology to form relationships makes it more challenging to do the same in real life. Children who have more screen time have fewer personal interactions with others. That makes them less likely to be empathetic to the needs other people have, difficulty forming friendships, and fewer social skills that don’t involve computers, tablets, or consoles.

4. Relying on technology reduces the imagination of a child.
Imaginative play creates a positive impact on the development of a child. It encourages them to test the limits of their knowledge and abilities. They find confidence in themselves to solve problems, become resilient to challenges, and develop practical strategies to cope with frustration, anger, and fear. Technology does not provide these benefits at the same level because it shows a child imagery instead of encouraging them to imagine it on their own.

This lull in creative thought eventually shrinks the world around the child. They begin to stop engaging in real-life, preferring the fantasy worlds offered by technology instead. It is a disadvantage which leads to an increase in psychiatric disorders, ADHD, anxiety problems, and sensory processing disorders.

5. It creates virtual accomplishments.
Children using technology achieve accomplishments just as kids who don’t use modern tech do. The difference is that their achievements are in a virtual world. Imagine a child who becomes extremely good at a baseball game. They know the rules of baseball, understand hitting and pitching concepts, and may even dominate in online competitions. Does that translate into a real ability to hit the ball, run the bases, or pitch effectively?

Even with the rise of e-sports, children are finding that virtual accomplishments don’t mean much in the adult world. There must be a balance between the two to encourage learning and skill development.

6. Kids struggle with time management when using technology.
The effect of children playing video games, using computers, or running an app on a mobile device is similar to what adults experience in a casino. Their environment does not include an element of time. By reducing access to time, people become hyper-focused on the activities which are in front of them. Enjoyable activities make time seems to occur at a faster pace, encouraging more extended interactions. Like an app or game doesn’t display time, dealers at a casino are encouraged not to wear watches.

7. There are negative impacts on children with developmental disabilities.
Specific technologies for children with developmental disabilities are profoundly helpful. They encourage reading, movement, and inclusion despite the challenges faced each day. Kids with developmental disabilities are empowered through the tech they use, but it can also become an addictive trap. Kids with these challenges often struggle to disengage from their activities, which creates unwanted (and potentially unsafe) behaviors when it cannot be used any longer.

8. Parents have a cost element to consider when introducing technology to their kids.
Let’s face it – buying modern technology isn’t cheap. Even an entry-level tablet with some functionality costs about $100. Purchasing a Chromebook puts you in a $150-$200 price range. If you want an Apple product, your tablet may cost $400 or more, while the computers are close to $1,000 for something basic. Homes with financial means will experience more of the advantages with their children using technology because they’ll have access to more choice. Over time, this creates a disadvantage for children who come from poorer, often rural households where tech access is somewhat restricted.

9. It may impact their vision.
Children who use screen-based technologies for extended periods are at a higher risk of developing Computer Vision Syndrome. Prolonged screen exposure creates eye fatigue, blurred vision, double vision, and sometimes a burning sensation. Kids who sit to use technology may experience lower back pain, neck pain, and headaches along with the vision concerns. The best way to prevent this damage is to take a 20-minute break for every 30 minutes of technology use. The computer desk or workstation should complement their size needs, with the computer screen being a maximum of 28 inches from their eyes.

The pros and cons of children using technology all come down to moderation. Anything can be harmful if it is overused, and today’s tech is no exception. We must aim for the benefits while structuring its use in ways that encourage movement, real-life interactions, and the building of social skills. When kids can have a hands-on learning opportunity with personal interactions with technology, they can achieve anything.

The one-child policy in China introduced the world to a new form of population planning in 1979. Although this structure seemed to apply to all families in the country from an outside perspective, about 30% of households were restricted to having one child only. Violations of the policies involved fines, imprisonment or both.

The Chinese government claims that their one-child policy limited their population size by over 400 million in less 40 years. It was phased out as official legislation in 2015.

Using population planning techniques like the one-child policy are controversial on several levels.

• It required families to follow specific laws that may not suit their own wishes.
• The rules placed a greater emphasis on having boys (for inheritance purposes) over girls.
• There was a surge in unsafe abortion practices when unintended pregnancies occurred.

These Chinese one-child policy pros and cons take a look at the historical consequences of the policy, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages which came from this generational restriction. Here are the critical points to consider.

List of the Pros of China’s One-Child Policy

1. The policy exempted families who were experiencing a multiples birth.
If a woman became pregnant with multiples, usually twins or triplets, then the family was excluded from the one-child policy immediately. China Daily noted that families becoming pregnant with multiples more than doubled during the period when this legislation was actively enforced. When a couple wanted to have more than one child, they could “get around” the policy by using fertility medication. The cost of taking the medicine was usually lower than the fine would be for having a second child otherwise.

2. It altered the perception of women within Chinese society.
Because families were permitted one child only, the role of girls and women began evolving within China. Before the policy, boys and men were given a majority of the educational opportunities and career investments by a family. Girls and women were expected to take care of their homes and families unless exceptionally gifted in some way. After the policy, families with one girl enrolled their children into school more often. They sought vocational learning opportunities not allowed by the unwritten rules of the past.

That process allowed this generation of women to enjoy a quality of life much higher than seen in past decades – including the time before the Communist government took over control.

3. The expectations of the one-child policy were emphasized internally.
The China one-child policy was not an expectation placed on the rest of the world. It was used as a way to limit population growth to support economic improvements within their society. The country never attempted to leverage trade agreements or international purchasing decisions by demanding others try to follow their lead.

Even if others in the world disagreed with the one-child policy, a majority of the population reportedly agreed with it. As late as 2006, when dissent restrictions had eased, almost 80% of the population supported the legislation.

4. There are very few drawbacks to having an online child.
When parents have an only child, then they can afford a better way of life for their kids. They can attend better schools without sacrificing something else. It is easier to schedule vacations, manage schedules, and support each other financially. Although there are benefits to having a larger family too, much of the resistance against a one-child policy is that the children would be lonely.

According to Dr. Toni Falbo, Professor at the University of Texas, kids who are an only child are just as happy as those with siblings. “My research in China and the United States indicates that only children are no more lonely than those with siblings because most parents with one child promote peer interactions.

5. It increased the number of available job opportunities in China.
With fewer children being born because of the one-child policy, job openings became readily available as the generation born in 1979 and after began growing up. Fewer babies meant less competition for the best possible jobs. With men often taking the lead in earning income, families had more opportunities than before to change their financial circumstances. That also helped to lessen food shortages, reduce poverty, and improve educational opportunities for the next generation of children.

6. Families who complied with the one-child policy were rewarded.
In a 2011 report published by The Guardian, parents who followed the rules of having only one child could receive a monthly stipend from the government. They would be given preferential treatment at the hospital, extra land allowances, and even free homes in some circumstances. Some families were offered up to 1 ton of free water per month for their farming activities. Extra pension benefits and the first choice of a government job were part of the package.

The process even allowed students to receive extra points on their entrance exams when they reached middle-school age.

7. Rural families were often exempted from the policy.
Most married women in China during the one-child policy had the chance to have two offspring. Rural families were allowed a second child if their first was a girl. Women from an ethnic minority could have up to three children during the enforcement of the legislation. Almost a dozen exceptions were in place as well, including babies born with congenital disabilities or other health concerns.

If the father and the mother were both single children, then they could have a second child as well.

List of the Cons of China’s One-Child Policy

1. Catastrophe changes the family dynamic forever.
Families became over-protective of their children when the one-child policy was enforced in China. With only one child in the house, there is a genuine risk of losing that child to a young death, leaving the parents with no other children. Even though kids from one-child families see additional opportunities for community extra-curricular activities, they also run the same risks during a catastrophe. Losing both parents means they have no one in their immediate family left to connect with, unlike those who have siblings.

2. The results of the one-child policy in China are up for debate.
Societies which modernize see a natural decline in births over time. Even with China’s claim that 400 million births were prevented with this policy, that number fits in with the natural declines seen in the developed world. Japan experienced a total reduction in their population of 300,000 people in 2016 because there were fewer than 1 million births for the first time in the country’s history.

Couples start families when there are good opportunities for young people in the economy. When those chances are not present, then the birth rate goes down. Even coupling rates go down in those circumstances. The results achieved by China may have more to do with their government or economic structure than an expectation to have just one child per family.

3. The one-child policy in China caused families to want boys over girls.
Although girls in China received better opportunities because of the one-child policy, there are fewer women in the country today because of it. The country saw a disparity in the number of boys being born compared to girls. There are 30 million more men in China today compared to women, which may lead to future economic instability.

At its peak in the 1990s, 117 boys were being born in China for every 100 girls. That is above the maximum ratio of 111 to 100 which happens naturally for both boys and girls in a society. Because of this issue, more men are seeking mates outside of their border, which will also have future impacts on Chinese society that were unintended at the time the legislation was first enforced.

4. Adoptions costs increased because of the Chinese one-child policy.
Parents could not adopt other children if they already had a child because of the legislation passed for the one-child policy. That left numerous children to be cared for in state-run institutions, including orphanages, even if they had family nearby to care for them. Up to 90% of the children in these institutions were girls, and few of them were orphans. They were there because they’d been abandoned due to the one-child policy.

Even when international families attempted adoption, China increased the price to make it unfeasible except for the wealthiest few. With mortality rates often climbing above 50% in rural facilities, this policy caused needless harm to children who would have otherwise had loving families at home caring for them.

5. The one-child policy created a care burden for aging parents.
This disadvantage to the China one-child policy was one of the primary reasons why the legislation was abandoned in 2015 for good. Experts studying the issue found that as parents and grandparents aged, their one child was forced to support up to four grandparents and their parents at the same time. Referred to as the “4-2-1 Problem,” the structure forced families to seek out charitable support more often than in the past to meet basic needs.

There was also a surge in dependency program applications in China as the results of the one-child policy became known. Some regions permitted families to have additional children if their financial situation predicted the 4-2-1 Problem in the future up to a decade before formal removal of the one-child-only legislation.

6. China’s one-child policy was never equally enforced.
The reality of the one-child policy in China is that about 70% of households in the country were never required to follow it. Several examples were made public involving when it should have been enforced but was not. In one province, over 2,000 officials violated the policy without consequence.

Those who were consequenced for their actions did not suffer the same extensive penalty as others.

Then there was the case of Zhang Yimou, who is an internationally respected filmmaker, producer, writer, and actor. He has four children. The government fined him the equivalent of $1.2 million for violations of the one-child policy. Rumors were that he’d fathered seven children with four different women and faced additional fines, but he eventually settled in 2014.

7. It violates the reproductive rights of individuals.
Governments do have responsibilities for social planning. They are also charged with the protection of fundamental human rights, one of them being reproduction. Some of the darkest hours of human history involve a government dictating what people are permitted to do as they plan their families.

The International Conference of Human Rights declared in 1968 that family planning is a basic human right. Even decisions involving when children should be born, or the age gap between siblings, was included in that ruling. China looked at sterilization, genetic manipulation, and other forms of permanent birth control to enforce their policy over time.

8. The China one-child policy encouraged out-of-country births.
According to a 2015 article published by Vice, Chinese women were paying up to $50,000, not including medical expenses, to give birth to a second child in the United States during enforcement of the one-child policy. The U.S. was the most-desired location because any child born in the country automatically became a citizen, earning a passport which could help reduce or eliminate the fine of having an extra child.

For one father named Lianghui, he’d already paid double his annual income for a second daughter in China. He would be asked to pay three times his annual salary to have a third child, the son he’d always wanted. “Rather than paying the fine,” he told Vice, “we registered him to my brother who lives in Canada and isn’t planning on coming back.”

9. China’s one-child policy came at a high financial cost.
Provincial governments were responsible for setting the budget when enforcing the one-child policy at the local level. Henan registered their 100 millionth resident during the decade of the 2010s while the policy was still enforced. They were paying about 4 billion yuan per year, the equivalent of $650 million, to implement the policy. That represented 4% of provincial spending, which is a similar figure throughout the rest of China.

10. It targeted the poor more than the rich.
Wealthy families in Beijing and Shanghai could easily pay the penalties for having additional children. In the poor provinces, families were at risk of having their property confiscated because they could not pay when violating the one-child quota.

China’s one-child policy offered several pros and cons to consider in retrospect. There were certainly family-planning benefits to consider, along with societal assistance in the reduction of population growth rates. The disadvantages were also profound, often sacrificing the health and lives of children to maintain a political status quo. It also creates an important question which societies must answer: should the government have the right to plan the future of your family without your consent?

Christopher Columbus became famous in the late 15th and early 16th centuries because of his exploration activities in the New World. He would complete four different voyages across the Atlantic Ocean with the support of the monarchs in Spain. His efforts helped to discover more about North, Central, and South American than any other European explorer at the time.

Much about the early life of Christopher Columbus is not fully known. He is believed to have been born in Genoa, spoke Ligurian as a first language, and went exploring on the seas at a very young age. He was also self-educated, used the ocean as an entrepreneurial opportunity, and eventually gave up his plan to find spices by going West for gold, slaves, and additional food products.

We still use many of the names that Columbus gave for the islands and discoveries accredited to him. Columbus Day celebrates when his ships landed in The Bahamas for the first time.

Although his journey, explorations, and activities are regarded in a positive light, there are several negatives to consider with his experiences in the New World too. Here are the biggest pros and cons of Christopher Columbus to review.

List of the Pros of Christopher Columbus

1. Columbus improved food security for the Old World and the New World.
Europe struggled with a food crisis in the 15th century. Croplands were not producing well. Harvests were being tainted by fungal infections. Unless someone was wealthy, they lived in a food-insecure household.

The fields of the New World were not well-suited for farming initially. Tribes scraped by on what they could hunt or gather. Columbus initiated an exchange of livestock for crop growth, allowing both cultures to benefit from the added food supply. It took fewer than 20 years for food security to improve for a majority of households.

2. He introduced new ways of thinking to the New World.
Columbus was a skilled navigator due to his history with the sea. Using the stars, maps, and his compass, he could travel almost anywhere or replicate any journey. This knowledge is something he passed along to the tribes and colonists who would eventually settle in the New World. People spent less time traveling, improving movement efficiencies throughout the world. Fewer uncertainties about map accuracy occurred because of his efforts to spread knowledge too.

3. Livestock introductions occurred in the New World because of Columbus.
Christopher Columbus brought numerous livestock options over from the Old World as a means of trade in the Americas. The tribes immediately recognized the value of having livestock for food instead of trying to hunt for it. They readily accepted his cattle, hogs, and sheep during the three visits made after his fateful journey in 1492.

Horses were introduced because of these journeys as well, which improved the transportation capacity of the tribes in the Americas. People could travel further and faster, creating new avenues for trade. Although livestock created a wealth dynamic which also led to tribal wars at times, the ability to turn empty fields into plentiful pastures was an overall benefit for most native tribes.

4. It gave the Old World an opportunity to colonize and expand.
Although Christopher Columbus is credited with the discovery of the Americas, Admiral Zheng He may have explored the region over 70 years before Columbus did. Accurate maps of the Americas, artifacts discovered along the coasts, and star charts indicating global voyages suggest the Chinese were the first to circle the world.

What Columbus did provide was an opportunity for Europe to expand its footprint. Any scalability effort offers pros and cons to consider. The fact is that the Americas wouldn’t be where they are today without the exploration efforts that were made in the 15th century – good and bad.

5. Columbus introduced concepts of modern spirituality during his voyages.
Christopher Columbus was a devout Catholic. History may judge his actions in a brutal light, but it was also the standard operating procedure to do what he did at the time. His efforts to spread Christianity to the New World created a wave of spirituality through the Americas that influences how religions are taught in the region still today. Columbus was trying to circumvent the influences of the Ottoman Empire, based on Islam, and felt reaching the Americas was a way to do that.

“I believe that they would easily be made Christians,” Columbus wrote in his diary, “for it seemed to me that they had no religion of their own.” Even with his view of Old World superiority and his forced subjugation, he also noted that becoming faith had to happen by love and not force. He offered glass beads, red caps, and other gifts as evidence of his concern.

6. Numerous countries still benefit from the crop exchanges.
Christopher Columbus brought sugar cane and bananas to be grown in the New World because he immediately recognized the opportunity to grow tropical foods in the region. These plantations proliferated, supporting a growing import/export passageway between the old and the new. Potatoes grew better in the New World too, creating cheaper food options for Europe. Although the plantations have changed over the years, many of the cash crops introduced by Columbus are still being grown today because of the positive impacts they create on the food supply.

7. It improved food economies across three continents.
Within 20 years of the final voyage made by Christopher Columbus, maize was grown in Asia, Africa, and Europe. It was a useful crop, adaptable to the growing conditions in each region, becoming a primary stable in the Nile Delta. By the beginning of the 19th century, the corn imported by Columbus became a source of food for livestock and families. The spices imported to Europe, Africa, and Asia would become integrated elements of local cuisine, with the techniques developed then still practiced by families today.

List of the Cons of Christopher Columbus

1. His journeys caused numerous diseases to spread throughout the world.
The native populations in the Americas and the Caribbean had no immunities for the various European diseases that Christopher Columbus brought with him on his four journeys across the ocean. There had been zero exposure to the measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, scarlet fever, malaria, whooping cough, chickenpox, influenza, or the bubonic plague to the tribes before Columbus made contact. Up to 90% of local populations were wiped out because of disease exposure.

Columbus also brought home diseases obtained from the New World. One theory suggests that the crews under his command brought back a virulent form of syphilis which spread across Europe like a storm in the 1490s. Polio and tuberculosis were also brought back to the civilization centers of the Old World because of these activities.

2. Columbus used his travels to enter the slave-trading market.
Many children have sung songs in school about how in 1492, Columbus sailed the “ocean blue.” What got missed during this lesson is the fact on the first day he landed, Columbus enslaved six people because he felt that they would be “good servants.” During his trips to the New World, he enacted forced labor policies to profit off of local gold, tobacco, and chocolate. Thousands of people were gathered on his ships to be sold as slaves in Europe too, with hundreds dying before they ever reached dry land again.

3. He was a brutal governor.
Christopher Columbus was appointed as the governor and viceroy over the Indies because of his discoveries. His primary land to rule would become the Dominican Republic. His brutality, slave gathering, and disease spreading reputation proceeded him, so the people there rebelled against him.

The response Columbus had to the revolt involved a brutal crackdown on the local population. Numerous natives were killed. Then he ordered their bodies dismembered before parading the dead through the streets in an effort to quell any further rebellious activities.

4. Columbus still forcibly indoctrinated people into his faith.
Christopher Columbus is sometimes entertained as a possible saint within the Catholic faith. That effort doesn’t get too far because investigations show he forcibly indoctrinated many of the tribes. He thought they’d be easy to convert, but the reality for Columbus was very different. He would eventually create encomienda.

Under this new system, European settlers and explorers were responsible for native groups. They would teach these groups how to speak Spanish and elements of the Catholic faith. Then, in exchange, land grants were offered and maintained. Each group was forced to provide tribute, in labor and gold, to prevent them from being labeled as rebellious.

5. The Columbian Exchange introduced more than just cash crops and livestock.
When Christopher Columbus initiated exchanges, there were harmful elements included with the transaction for both parties. Invasive rats began eating saved food stores on some islands to the point humans could no longer live there safely. Weeds and various grasses took over croplands, making them useless for growing food stores. Gray squirrels stowed away on ships returning to Europe, creating similar problems for the Old World. A nasty potato fungus ripped through food stores there too, making it difficult for some countries to produce crops for more than a generation.

6. Animal diseases expanded because of Columbus’s efforts.
Much has been written about the various diseases which spread to human populations because of Christopher Columbus. What should not be ignored are the animal diseases which spread because of these exchanges too. Larger animals like cattle overwhelmed the smaller domesticated alpacas and llamas, with livestock diseases spreading plentifully across the population centers.

7. Columbus changed the ecosystem of the Americas for the worse.
As explorers made their way through the Americas, millions of people died because of the diseases being spread. With human populations severely decreased, forests began to regrow. Animals that were hunted for food saw their population numbers start rising. Dramatic labor shortages began appearing on all the continents. The loss of population contributed to the vast import of slavery to the region by the 17th century, which was an issue not fully resolved on a national level until the late 19th century – and in some areas, the problem still exists.

The pros and cons of Christopher Columbus are a mixed result. He certainly offered the world several benefits through his explorative actions. There are also lingering consequences which should not be ignored in the lessons taught in today’s classrooms. It may be true that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but many who suggest the world would have been a better place if that hadn’t happened.

Civil disobedience occurs when an individual or group refuses to follow the rules, policies, or legislation passed by their government. It may involve violence, but most forms of civil disobedience involve non-violent protests and actions. There must be a goal to change the minds of others or the opinions of legislatures for decisions to be classified under the banner of this subject.

An act of civil disobedience places the individual at a higher risk of repercussion. Most acts which are classified under this subject violate laws at some level. Individuals could find themselves arrested because of their actions, shamed through print and social media, or confronted with force by law enforcement.

These significant pros and cons of civil disobedience allow for a fair overview of such actions, as it does become necessary from time to time for the general public to rise up against an unjust government.

As Henry David Thoreau once penned, “Unjust laws exist. Shall we be content to obey them? Or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded? Or shall we transgress them at once?”

List of the Pros of Civil Disobedience

1. Acts of civil disobedience work to protect individual rights.
Actions of civil disobedience will wax and wane over time because people are attracted to specific causes. When someone feels as if a specific right of theirs is being trampled upon, then they join up with others who feel the same way to do something about the issue. People who have disobeyed civil authority have stopped cruel and unusual punishment in the past, prevented ongoing segregation, challenged literary censors, and protected individualized rights of privacy and freedom.

2. It provides another check and balance in the framework of society.
The United States prevents government control through the use of checks and balances through the three branches of government. By limiting the power of each one, the chances of a tyrant coming to power after an election are minimal.

Acts of civil disobedience provide another check and balance on that system. Although these acts are informal, they also prevent a government from going too far in its acts of suppression.

3. Civil disobedience establishes religious freedoms.
Over the years, acts of civil disobedience have helped to shape how the world perceives religion and spirituality. Acts by Christian business owners, for example, refusing to offer baked goods or catering services to those that live an “alternative lifestyle” offer a recent example of what decisions like this can do. By refusing to follow their stated promise to serve everyone, they look to shape their personal faith and that of others who share their perspective into something which is meaningful for them.

When faith becomes part of the civil disobedience process, a government struggles to stand. If people feel that God wants their government to fall, it’s difficult to debate that perspective. Who can argue with a supernatural deity?

4. It protects the rights of the minority population groups in society.
Civil disobedience is a way for the ethnic and cultural minorities to ensure their voice is heard in the national political debate. People from the majority can use this tool to promote awareness of critical issues facing these groups too. The goal of any act which falls under this banner is to improve the life of someone, in some way, because the participants see the government as doing the opposite. Every action which involves civil disobedience seeks to prevent the majority from having tyranny over the fundamental liberties of the minority.

5. Civil disobedience works to ensure fairness for each person.
There will always be people who disobey civilly because it is “fun” or it “gives them a thrill.” Those who engage in such an action don’t believe in the abolishment of laws or the granting of special exceptions for some people. They simply want reasonable and just enforcement of laws which allow everyone to have the same shot at success, no matter what their socioeconomic background happens to be.

A U.S. perspective might be that everyone should receive a fair trial, and all rights of due process, because the Bill of Rights guarantees that should happen. If a government body attempts to refuse those rights, then acts of civil disobedience can help to restore balance to the system.

6. It is a check and balance which doesn’t go away.
Since 1920, there have been 18 different presidents who served the United States in the White House. Each came and went, history judging some to be better than others. Throughout that time, the movements of civil disobedience have always remained present in society. Even Supreme Court justices who serve life terms cannot outlive the actions of a household who passes along their own definitions of morality, spirituality, and justice to each generation.

The passions pursued through these actions offer an independent voice to a country which often needs to hear a different perspective. When a society embraces diversity, it becomes stronger because of it. That happens because governments come and go, but it is the family who never changes.

7. Civil disobedience allows someone to follow their conscience.
Governments exist because they form social contracts with the general population. In exchange for defense, social needs, or other benefits provided to all, they are allowed to govern through consent. When the individuals in government place their own welfare above those they’re called to protect, then one way to restore the balance of the social contract is through civil disobedience. People tend to make a choice to disobey when they feel like other people are benefiting from what the government offers more than them.

8. It provides evidence that social injustice occurs in society.
The actions taken to stop the Occupy movement when it spread from Wall Street helped galvanize more support for it. When mass arrests were made on the Brooklyn Bridge, more people signed up to take on the cause. Law enforcement evicted people from a camp in Oakland, which turned the acts of civil disobedience toward college campuses. Then peaceful students were pepper-sprayed by officers at the University of California-Davis, further reinforcing how people felt.

The issue with civil disobedience is that it lays bare the issues which society doesn’t want to see. People seek out excuses for the response to peaceful protest because they don’t want their lives to become uncomfortable. Authentic actions of civil disobedience eventually create evidence of the social injustices which exist in society. It’s up to the rest of the population to then decide which side they’ll support.

9. Civil disobedience is possible at any age.
Youth in the United States do not have the right to vote. That means the only way their voice is heard sometimes is through the civil disobedience process. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s saw young adults, teens, and even children to the marches that were held. These kids were sometimes imprisoned with the adults for their participation. It was an exciting time or many because they believed as a generation, they’d be able to change things for the better.

Freeman Hrabowski was only 12 when he marched in the Birmingham Children’s Crusade in 1963. He did so because the thought of competing in mathematics against white children excited him. Hrabowski was arrested during the march, and images of dogs and police officers attacking the children drew global scorn. Although there is always a physical risk involved with civil disobedience, anyone at any age can create the change they wish to see in the world.

List of the Cons of Civil Disobedience

1. Civil disobedience attempts to shape the morality of a nation.
Acts of civil disobedience sometimes defend equality, but it would be more accurate to say that it tries to shape or impose specific moral views on all individuals within a country. People are committed to their individual definitions of what “right” and “wrong” mean to them. Instead of permitting other people to pursue their own priorities with whatever freedoms are permitted, being disobedient on a civil level tells others that they are wrong and those participating are in the right.

2. It is a choice which invariably hurts others in some way.
Violent acts of civil disobedience can physically harm others. Destructive elements within these actions may damage property, reduce the reputation of a business, or restrict access for consumers to conduct business. Each May Day in Seattle (since 2012) brings about the threat of destruction and disruption to the city. Windows get smashed, people are sometimes confronted, and arrests are often made.

Whenever someone chooses to disobey the laws of the government, either they or someone who gets in their way will be hurt physically, emotionally, or financially. It then becomes up to history to determine who stood in the correct moral position.

3. Civil disobedience can force the will of the minority on the majority.
The basic tenet of a democracy is that the majority holds power on each issue. Negotiations, coalitions, and agreements create a group which makes decisions for the society based on the voting will of the general public. Acts of civil disobedience change this dynamic because those participating, either through violence or non-violence, seek to change this structure. They want the voice of the minority to take precedence over the will of the majority.

There are times when such an action does become necessary. Slavery, segregation, and women’s suffrage are all examples of how society changes when people come together to stop what they see as a moral injustice. If a government system regularly sides with the minority, however, it creates an effect which is opposite of what democratic structures offer.

4. It changes the perception of disobedience in society.
Since the 1980s, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are viewed as being overly supportive of criminals and activists instead of the majority in society. Some people refer to the organization as a “lobby of criminals.” If an individual decides to disobey, for any reason, then those who make a different decision create opinions about the reasons why. Families often get ripped apart because one side sees the act of disobedience as a way to protect rights, while the other half sees the action as an effort to take rights away.

Even Jesus acknowledged this disadvantage when discussing how family dynamics would change when belief systems changed in Luke 12. “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on, five in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three.”

5. Civil disobedience often creates an impression of bias.
The ACLU provides us with another example of this disadvantage of civil disobedience. The organization often describes itself as being a “guardian of liberty” for the United States. Because they take up far-left, often progressive causes for defense, people outside of the groups it represents see it as a defender of only a few instead of helping everyone maintain the rights given to them by the government.

People tend to see actions through their own rose-colored glasses, whether participating in civil disobedience or refraining from it. The ACLU has defended thousands of cases where Christians had their religious rights threatened too, including the right of an elementary-school student to read the Bible during a free-reading time at school.

6. Acts of civil disobedience are often seen as being politically favorable to one specific group.
When the Occupy Wall Street movement began in September 2011, it created a worldwide movement which fought to stop global economic inequality. If you look up the history of this action online, most websites call it a “progressive” protest. Progressivism in the United States is usually associated with being on the left of the political spectrum. That means the average American would see or learn that Democrats were the primary participants involved.

There were Republicans at these protests. Conservatives who were unhappy with the state of economic affairs at the time participated too. Entire perspectives shift from the outside because of one association point, which is seen as politically favorable to one party or group instead of being looked at as the complex issue it tends to be.

7. It can be used to promote unjust causes.
The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA include groups associated with neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the hard elements of the alt-right. Many protesters chanted slogans which were anti-Semitic or racist in their wording and town. Some carried Nazi symbols and elements of anti-Muslim groups. The majority would declare that the oppression of others in favor of one race is not a moral position. Their acts of civil disobedience would therefore constitute an unjust cause.

When President Donald Trump didn’t denounce these statements, saying that there were “very fine” people on both sides, it gave the unjust cause added incentive to perceive itself as just. That is the danger of civil disobedience. If people in power support an unjust position, it can shift how society thinks in dangerous ways.

8. Civil disobedience can radicalize individuals.
Acts of civil disobedience may start peacefully, but it can lead toward violence through the radicalization process. Individuals become radicalized when they begin to adopt increasingly extreme ideologies from social, political, or religious viewpoints. These people then begin to plot violent acts to convince others that their moral position is strong, with the idea that others will then fall along when completed. There are different individual pathways to consider with this disadvantage, but it often leads to the same results. Hatred fuels violence, which then creates harm in some way.

9. Almost every non-violent movement turns to violence at some point.
Even Gandhi inspired violent counterparts when India was on a quest toward independence. The 1922 Chauri Chaura incident saw a group of protestors, usually non-violent, become an angry mob. Why? Because police officers fired into the unarmed crowd. A police station was eventually burned during the response with 23 individuals trapped inside. Whether the violence is triggered by a government response or a social reply, when individuals pursuing non-violent means are targeted with life-threatening harm, most will defend themselves with equal ferocity.

10. It can reinforce the opposite positions that people believe.
Even with the Civil Rights Movement changing minds in the 1960s, the actions taken by marchers and protestors helped to solidify the opposite positions others held during the time. After the Selma to Montgomery marches, which changed many minds, there were people targeted (and murdered) because of their actions or support of the cause involved. There will always be a few that become radicalized because of their support against acts of civil disobedience, just as there are those who become radicalized when seeking equal justice for everyone involved.

These significant pros and cons of civil disobedience are essential to review because not all actions taken to defy a government are violent. One can be disobedient by refusing to obey or follow specific expectations on their own. When these acts are done in ways that limit harm and promote a moral outcome most can agree upon (such as the abolition of slavery in all forms), then the results are often positive. If violence erupts, or the minority attempts to govern the majority in the same way they’re being treated, then civil disobedience can move society closer to conflict instead of away from it.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) provides a combination of behavioral and talk therapy to help individuals reframe their negative thinking patterns. The goal of CBT is to help turn those negative patterns into positive thoughts. When this shift in perspective is achieved, then positive behaviors and actions express themselves during difficult moments or choices in that person’s life.

Several issues affect people each day, from loneliness to anxiety to depression. Each person seeks comfort during these times in their own way. Some choices may lead to destructive behaviors, while others, like an eating disorder, may trigger long-term health concerns if left unresolved.

During a CBT session, a patient works with their therapist to find the source of their negative thinking. Then they work to change that perspective toward a growth-based mindset. With enough time, many patients can find coping mechanisms which are healthy, allowing them to identify the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors which hold them back.

These are the significant pros and cons of cognitive behavioral therapy to review.

List of the Pros of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

1. It is as effective as medication to treat some mental health disorders.
About 7% of adults in the United States suffer from a major depressive disorder each year. The symptoms of this health issue include a loss of interest in things previously enjoyed, lower energy levels, physical disease development, and isolation. Severe issues with major depressive disorders can become life-threatening if not treated. When CBD is followed, the negative thought patterns are reconstructed, which can help to relieve moderate cases when under the care of a professional just as effectively as medication does.

2. CBT does not take much time to complete compared to other forms of talking therapy.
Patients who undergo cognitive behavioral therapy will usually meet for an individual session which lasts for 30 minutes, going up to 60 minutes, depending on the issues involved. You’d meet with your therapist about once per week or once every other week, depending on the situation involved. People who receive exposure therapy usually have more extended sessions.

Most CBT series last for 20 weeks or less. Some patients finish with their cognitive behavioral therapy in just five weeks. Compared to other talkative therapies which can last for years, or be an ongoing treatment service, CBT allows you to experience results right away.

3. The focus of CBT takes on different formats, depending on the issues presenting themselves.
Problems are broken into five primary areas within cognitive behavioral therapy: situations, thoughts, emotions, physical feelings, and actions. The goal of the sessions is to show patients that these sections are interconnected with one another in the brain. If you face a difficult situation, then you have a thought generated from it. That thought leads to an emotion. The emotion leads to a physical expression of those feelings. Then the expressions lead toward decisions or actions.

CBT creates opportunities to take on different formats of expression based on where the errors occur in a person’s life. Exposure therapy deals with phobias and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Patients can identify negative thought cycles. Whatever your current problems are, you’ll look at how you thought and acted in the past to change what you’d do in the future.

4. Different therapy session types and tools are available through CBT.
Talkative therapy is the most common way to begin engaging with cognitive behavioral therapy. There are multiple tools available for patients to use when working to restructure their thinking patterns too. You can read books that discuss the issues which you feel are most important to your current needs. There are group sessions used sometimes to help you see that you’re not alone. Videos, computer programs, and even road trips are sometimes included as therapy options. That’s because the goal is to help you work in ways that feel natural and comfortable to you.

5. The skills learned through each CBT session offer useful real-world skills.
When you’re working with a cognitive behavioral therapy counselor, what you are doing is skill-based practice. You are identifying coping strategies which can be used in any situation you find yourself. By finding ways to cope with anxiety and stress, the impacts which it makes become less influential on your life. You become more resilient because of that action, creating positive cycles which promote progress toward a solution.

This identification of coping skill mechanisms makes it possible for you to deal with chronic self-negativity, high-stress environments, or challenging situations because you understand the bigger picture through CBT. You’re no longer trapped in the acute thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which get triggered by the negative stimuli.

6. CBT is a collaborative effort.
When going through cognitive behavioral therapy, your therapist isn’t going to tell you what to do. They work with you instead to find a solution to the difficulties you face at the moment. That means you identify issues on a personal level, then invest in yourself to make the changes which are necessary. It is this process which becomes helpful when reacting to different situations.

Because CBT is a collaborative effort, there is more accountability to the process. When you have a partner, you’re vastly more likely to find success.

7. Medication can work with cognitive behavioral therapy.
CBT isn’t a treatment option which must be used by itself. Many doctors recommend cognitive behavioral therapy when medication alone isn’t working. Some people suffer from more than a chemical imbalance with their mental health concerns. Their thinking patterns become negative through outside stimuli, including their home environment, which no meds can touch. The success rate of medication and CBT is very high in several demographics, providing a realistic path of hope to overcome this obstacle for many.

8. CBT is useful for almost any age group.
Children and adults benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy when correctly used. The expectations are the same in any age group. As long as there is a capacity and will to create changes in one’s life, then CBT offers a solution which can treat the problems which exist. Even taking the time to talk about a situation is enough to provide some results because many people keep difficult situations internalized, making them fester because they don’t share their concerns with others.

CBT is a way to create trust in others and oneself while working to break negative cycles and their destructive influences in life. The probability of completing a goal when you’re accountable to someone for it is 95%. If you only hear of cognitive behavioral therapy and that’s as far as the treatment idea goes, then your probability of success drops to just 10%.

List of the Cons of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

1. Cognitive behavioral therapy relies on the will of the patient.
Each person must be invested in themselves for cognitive behavioral therapy to work. During the therapy session, you’ll be asked about what you hope to gain from the work you’re doing. You must review the urges, triggers, and stressors which cause you discomfort. The therapist will listen to your concerns, but it is up to you to put in the work that must be done to create change.

If you’re unwilling to put together a plan or work on homework for the next session, then the results of your CBT experience will become limited. Everyone participating in cognitive behavioral therapy must fully cooperate with the process to produce results.

2. It takes a lot of time to complete CBT with the extra work between sessions.
Homework is arguably the most crucial element of cognitive behavioral therapy. The assignments you’ll complete during your time in CBT come from a development between yourself and the therapist helping you. Most of the work requirements involve the rehearsal of new skills first practiced during a therapy session. Coping strategies are developed and practiced too, along with time spent in the restructuring of destructive belief systems.

Expect to spend at least 1-2 hours per day working on these therapeutic elements. Some patients may need to double their time commitment. Each session requires completed assignments to be the most useful, which means most of your free time could be taken by your cognitive behavioral therapy responsibilities.

3. CBT is not useful for individuals with specific learning difficulties.
Experiential therapy is the primary format which cognitive behavioral therapy uses to treat individuals with specific learning difficulties. By taking a hands-on approach, the cognitive challenges faced by the person involved are overcome through the element of actual practice. This approach doesn’t work for everyone, however, because it relies on an environment perceived to be safe by the individual. There are some learning difficulties which eliminate all safe environments, limiting the effects CBT creates.

4. People with complex mental health needs may not benefit from CBT either.
Cognitive behavioral therapy works to restructure issues like anxiety by changing how thoughts are processed. With complex phobias or mental health concerns, CBT isn’t useful because there are specific elements of risk which always apply sometimes.

Take someone who fears flying as an example. Someone is statistically safer flying than driving, yet if a plane drops from 30,000 feet and crashes, you’re 100% dead. Some people walk away from high-speed head-on collisions. You might be statistically safer in a plane, but if an incident occurs, the individual with the phobia would say they’re statistically safer in the automobile. Being cognitive about thoughts is not always a guarantee that improvements are made.

5. Cognitive behavior therapy often makes people feel worse before they feel better.
CBT requires individuals to confront the issues which create difficult feelings for them. During the initial sessions and homework completed by the patient, the initial confrontation of fear, anxiety, or other issues creates a surge in negative thoughts and feelings. It is not unusual for physical actions to become worse too. Someone who struggles with loneliness and copes by eating might find themselves regularly checking the fridge for a snack during this phase.

The results of cognitive behavioral therapy begin to show themselves after the first couple of sessions and the related homework. If someone decides to give up during the initial phase when symptoms are often worse, it could place the patient in a position which is even more vulnerable than before.

6. CBT addresses current issues only instead of addressing some underlying causes.
The goal of cognitive behavioral therapy is to address issues which face an individual right now. That perspective seeks to break the patient out of their negative thinking cycles, restructuring their thoughts toward something more positive. There are times, however, when chronic issues create negative cycles and CBT doesn’t always address the issue.

Take a childhood filled with constant travel and movement. Then a parent leaves the family at a young age, trapping the patient in a cycle of poverty until their teen years. Now they struggle with obsessive-compulsive issues because everything holds value to them. They cannot let things go because they are emotionally attached to each item. Addressing the attachment through cognitive behavioral therapy won’t change how the individual copes with the parent who left them, which could be the core issue driving the negative cycles in the first place.

7. It focuses on the individual capacity to change.
People must be willing to change for cognitive behavioral therapy to work correctly. There must also be an individual capacity to change for CBT to offer useful results. If someone is told to use a computer program as part of their therapy, but they don’t have access to that technology, then it won’t be a practical pursuit. The tools recommended for homework, group sessions, or 1-on-1 therapy must offer availability to the patient for thought restructuring to take place. Nothing happens without this access.

The pros and cons of cognitive behavioral therapy work to find helpful ways to react to situations instead of relying on unhelpful methods. Instead of accepting that you are a failure because of what happens to you, trapped in a negative cycle, CBT encourages you to look for a positive future. It makes your problems more manageable, even if there are situations when it may not be the correct therapeutic option to choose.

Research suggests that when people are older when making their first significant life event, whether that is cohabitation or marriage, then their changes are better to stay together over a lifetime.

More American couples are choosing cohabitation before marriage because it offers a chance to share the bills without the cost of marriage. Critics compare this decision as a way to “play house” or share a bed without the consequences of leaving that a marriage contract requires. The Council on Contemporary Families says that cohabitation doesn’t make a couple an automatic divorce statistic either.

For most couples, cohabitation of any type at the age of 23, when adult life begins and people become financially independent, decreases the chances of divorce. Couples who commit to cohabitation (or marriage) at the age of 18 see a 60% chance of breakup or divorce. That rate drops in half at the age of 23.

Here are some more of the pros and cons to look at when evaluating cohabitation before marriage.

List of the Pros of Cohabitation Before Marriage

1. It is a way for couples to share liabilities while also having more individuality.
Living together in today’s society helps people save money. Without a marriage commitment, there are fewer expenses to consider while planning too. You can live like a married couple if you want without the cost of creating a legal contract. There are no religious laws or ceremonies to worry about either, allowing people to go their separate ways easily enough should the circumstances of life change. There is no legal reason to stay bound together or costs involved with separation.

2. Cohabitation allows you to get to know your partner better.
The choice to cohabitate is rising in the United States and the rest of the world because it offers a chance to evaluate compatibility. Each person gets to frame their opinion about the other with an authentic view of their conduct, character, and demeanor. You know what you’re getting into before marriage because you’re experiencing it on a “test run” of sorts. Research published in the book Cohabitation and Marital Stability found that cohabitation before marriage increased by up to 44% through the 1980s, with 60% of adults saying that it’s the “best” way to understand one another before marriage.

3. Couples who cohabit have more sex than married couples.
Dr. Helen Nightingale suggests that women tend to consent to cohabitation because they hope it will one day lead to marriage. They want their significant other to propose, putting a ring on their finger. When combined with the fewer legal connections involved with a sexual relationship, cohabiting couples tend to have intimate contact with each other more than three times per week, compared to 2-3 times per week for married couples.

There are fewer barriers to intimacy with cohabitation before marriage. There are no issues with the in-laws, fewer family demands, partner care responsibilities, or financial concerns like there are with marriage.

4. There are more bonding opportunities with cohabitation.
Living with someone changes the dynamics of dating. Instead of maintaining two households, you’re only stuck with one. You have more time to spend with one another each day instead of managing evenings or weekends. It creates new bonding opportunities on more than an intimate level because you’re spending more time with one another than a traditional courting relationship would permit. That gives you more time to set boundaries and goals which are meaningful for each person, which can lead to a higher level of success.

Although the divorce rates are higher within the first 7 years of marriage after cohabitation, couples who receive pre-marriage counseling or eventually marry the person they decided to cohabit with don’t share in that statistics. Their rates of relationship success are equal to that of the average married couple.

5. You can still protect your property when cohabitating.
If you decide to move in with someone before marriage, you can still protect your property if something should happen to your relationship. A cohabitation agreement works just like a prenuptial agreement does for a married couple. You can specify which things should be insured, how property division should occur, and most couples won’t have someone on the hook to pay alimony or “palimony” to support the needs of their ex-partner.

6. It will not impact the current status of received benefits.
One of the most significant advantages of cohabitation occurs for widows and widowers. You won’t lose access to your retirement interests in this relationship option as you would if you received a pension from a deceased spouse. Health benefits aren’t impacted with cohabiting as they are with a marriage either because your single income is used for evaluation – not the combined income you’d have when married.

Even alimony continues for some individuals when they choose cohabitation over marriage. That benefit ends if you get married to someone else. That gives you an opportunity to experience a romantic relationship at a level of seriousness which makes you comfortable without worrying about your financial status.

List of the Cons of Cohabitation Before Marriage

1. Cohabitation does not require a permanent relationship.
The benefits of cohabitation often disappear once children become involved in the equation. Pets and shared ownership of significant assets (homes, vehicles, etc.) create challenges during the breakup process, should it occur. Cohabitation doesn’t create the long-term commitments which often encourage people to work out their issues with one another. Most relationships like this end after six years or less, often with greater headaches in parenting plans or asset distribution than a marriage would cause.

2. There is always uncertainty with cohabitation.
Every relationship offers a level of uncertainty which must be evaluated. Every husband, wife, or individual decides each day in their relationship to stay or go. There is less certainty with cohabitation because there are fewer restrictions in place to leave. That creates less satisfaction in all aspects of life for some couples, including their emotional and sexual connections, because the future does not offer as much clarity. Marriage offers a potential destination and final goal, which makes the decision to stay easier because it takes more work to just leave.

3. Couples who cohabitate have less fulfilling sexual lives.
Marriage creates a foundation of loyalty, real or perceived, that gives men and women intimacy opportunities which they find to be more fulfilling. Only 17% of Americans admit to having an extramarital affair. Even for those who do cheat on their spouses, most consider their choice to be morally wrong. 91% of adults say that extramarital sex is wrong, which is higher than it was 40 years ago by over 20 percentage points.

Then there’s the fact that New York University found that women who are married are twice as likely to experience an orgasm compared to those who seek out a casual hookup or maintain a cohabiting relationship.

4. It isn’t a guarantee that marriage is going to habit.
About half of couples who decide to cohabit will eventually get married. Even though 54% of first marriages from 1990 to 1994 began with cohabitation, living together is more stressful for the average person than being married. It requires 7 years of marriage to offset the higher risk of divorce with cohabiting couples compared to married couples because of the stressors involved. Even the reconciliation rates are 33% lower for couples who live together before getting married compared to those who don’t start living together until marriage.

5. Cohabiting couples earn less money than married couples.
People who choose cohabitation over marriage might save on the legal contract costs of getting married, but it also causes them to miss the financial advantages which come when they formally tie the knot. There are several financial advantages to think about if someone weighs the benefits of cohabitation over its disadvantages.

• Spouses do not pay an estate tax.
• Most married couples save on their taxes by filing jointly because of the tax-rate differences with the income brackets in the United States.
• Married couples can gift money to one another with limited consequences.
• Medicare, Social Security, and veteran’s benefits transfer to spouses.
• Health insurance costs are lower for married couples compared to cohabiting couples.

6. It doesn’t change the trauma of separation.
One of the advantages that cohabitation offers is the chance to move on from the relationship with fewer legal consequences. Courts aren’t required to get involved as they are with a marriage, even if there are no assets or parenting plans involved. According to Psychology Today, the reasons why couples break up when cohabiting are the same as they are in any other relationship.

Although infidelity is a top reason for all relationships to end, partners who have outbursts of anger or rage, don’t make their relationship a priority, or prioritize selfishness will cause breakups too. Cohabiting partners can hide these issues just as well as a married spouse.

7. Cohabitation agreements sometimes have limited value.
When children are involved during a breakup when cohabitation is involved, then the court prioritizes what it perceives to be the best interests of the child over everything else. If you’re not married in this situation, you must confirm the paternity of the kiddo before having standing before the court. Then you must prove that your agreement doesn’t conflict with what the child requires. Married couples are always presumed to be the legal child of a spouse in this situation unless evidence is presented to suggest otherwise.

8. You must take extra steps to secure your estate.
If you decide to cohabit instead of getting married, then you must take extra steps to ensure your estate goes to your partner if something happens to you. A valid will, with your partner identified as your primary beneficiary, must be filed to create this shift in assets. Your property would go to your next of kin otherwise. Spouses will generally inherit all property without the need of a will.

9. Marriage laws are based on the contract date of your decision.
Marriage laws override cohabitation agreements for the purposes of disbursement. If you get divorced after you’re married, the time involved is based on when the marriage contract was signed. It doesn’t matter if you signed a cohabitation agreement 10 years before you got married. That means a divorce after 12 months, even if you’ve lived together for 15 years before that, means you can’t collect alimony in most states because you don’t meet the 36-month marriage threshold. If you cohabit, there is no option to collect alimony unless you agree to it within a contract or agreement.

These cohabitation pros and cons suggest that it could be a suitable decision in the relationship developing process for some couples. It is an easy way to evaluate what life together would be with fewer roadblocks in place and a chance to experience life together. There are always risks involved with any relationship, but it is the cohabitation couples which struggle with overall satisfaction. There are good reasons to get married, just as there are reasons to cohabit, which is why the individuals involved, not the statistics, matter the most.