Collective bargaining is a process of negotiation usually included with workplaces which have union representation. All employees in the United States have a general right to request a collective bargaining agreement with their employer on their own too, although this right is sometimes restricted in its application.

The process of collective bargaining allows each worker to negotiate for better wages, working conditions, and benefits in exchange for their compliance with workplace expectations. Employers also use this process to find the best employees, reduce turnover rates, and improve productivity levels.

Most agreements achieved through collective bargaining set specific standards of conduct for all parties in the workplace. This enhances safety, promotes a higher wellbeing, and encourages loyalty by removing the personal pain points of workers whenever possible.

The top advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining look at how the enhanced welfare of workers balances with the added cost of doing business. These are the vital key points to review.

List of the Advantages of Collective Bargaining

1. There is no requirement for collective bargaining to be an eternal contract.
Most collective bargaining arrangements are contracts which last for a specific period, usually somewhere between 2-5 years in length. Both sides in the negotiation may request shorter or longer contracts based on what they require. Although both sides want to improve their standing in future contracts, the fact that a “future” agreement is possible makes this arrangement beneficial for all parties involved. There will always be a chance to make changes when the current contract expires.

2. It represents each employee within the workplace.
The collective bargaining process does not exclude workers, even if they are not represented by a union. That means everyone benefits from the negotiated rates and benefits brought about by the contract. Each group must have representation for the contract to be valid too, which gives each group an opportunity to express their concerns or offer their ideas before the agreement governs daily work. Most jurisdictions allow representation whenever someone’s employment could be impacted by collective bargaining.

3. Collective bargaining encourages relationship formation.
People negotiated in good faith more often when there is an established relationship governing their work. That doesn’t mean employers and employees must become friends for the formation of a contract. There is a need for open lines of communication to be continually available for both sides to prosper in negotiations. When each side focuses on meeting their primary needs only, that’s when a collective bargaining agreement often fails to support the requirements of the workplace.

4. It is a contract which provides binding results to all parties.
You can’t change the rules once a collective bargaining agreement governs the workplace. Each party is bound by the policies and procedures included with the contract. That means everyone involved has legal standing should an issue at work come up in violation of the agreed-upon terms. When one group or party fails to live up to their standards in the contract, then the collective bargaining agreement is useful as a legal defense when someone becomes injured physically, financially, or in some other way while at work.

That means employers, employees, and any union representation all have access to a higher level of security to defend their livelihood.

5. The negotiation process encourages cooperation from all parties.
The collective bargaining negotiation process must be done in good faith for the contract to have legal standing in most jurisdictions. That means each group must work with the others involved to benefit everyone. There must be a balance achieved where everyone gets something they need, but not necessarily everything they want, through a perspective of sincerity or honesty of intention.

Acting in good faith creates standards in the collective bargaining process too. Groups are held liable sometimes if they refuse to uphold their end of the agreement for reasons which have little or nothing to do with the issues involved.

6. Collective bargaining offers a consistent workplace for all parties.
Most states in the U.S. use contractual employment through an at-will status. That means employers or employees can terminate their working relationship at their discretion. This practice sometimes creates inequality in bargaining power, as an individual worker seeking collective bargaining for themselves could be terminated just because they pursued that action.

That’s why unions often come together to create a collective bargaining contract in the first place. Employers can afford to let one worker go, but it becomes difficult to replace whole groups of employees. When these groups reach an agreement, the contract extends coverage to the individuals involved who may not wish that type of group representation.

7. These agreements improve the quality of life for each worker.
The collective bargaining agreements negotiated in good faith often support higher wages for each worker. Many offer additional benefits, such as healthcare access or retirement benefits, which would not be available to self-employed workers or individual contractors. Workplace conditions become safer under collective bargaining contracts too, as employers and workers are both held accountable for ongoing maintenance and inspection concerns.

When these benefits are available over the life of a collective bargaining agreement, the quality of life for each worker improves. They have more money to spend, allowing them to afford a more beautiful home or vehicle, while being offered a safer workplace where they have better guarantees about coming home each day.

8. Collective bargaining ensures each worker has a say in their workplace.
Individuals often find it difficult to negotiate on their behalf with their employer. Most workers, especially when they are in a non-union position, are often told that they can take the offer or find a different job. It is a process which creates a “race to the bottom” in wages because there always seems to be someone willing to work at a lower rate of pay. The collective bargaining process changes this point of emphasis, allowing workers to advocate for one another while protecting their best interest simultaneously. People saying the same thing together is more challenging to ignore than one person trying to make a difference on their own.

9. It encourages greater economic growth.
When collective bargaining agreements govern the workplace, then the distribution of income throughout society begins to balance itself out. At the peak of unionization, in the 1940s and 1950s, there were periods of strong economic growth and minimal income inequality. As the drive to push unions out of the workplace strengthens, the societal benefits of the past begin to fade. The top 1% currently owns about 40% of the wealth in the United States, according to 2018 figures.

In the 1950s, the top 0.1% owned less than 10% of household wealth. In 2013, that rate approached 25%, which was a rate achieved just before the sizeable economic crash in the 1930s.

List of the Disadvantages of Collective Bargaining

1. There are no guarantees found in a collective bargaining agreement.
Collective bargaining does provide benefits for both parties when negotiated in good faith. There are contracts out there which do not offer these benefits either. Some contracts require no productivity requirements from their workers, making it a challenge to discipline workers who don’t produce regularly. Employers can negotiate contracts which allow them to pay non-living wages to workers too.

Both sides can lock themselves into long-term positions which place their financial security at risk because of the agreement. Some collective bargaining contracts are even found to be invalid when challenged. A CBA does not guarantee positive results.

2. Collective bargaining changes the workplace.
Most collective bargaining agreements involve union representation working with the management of the corporation which hires employees. Several companies discourage unionization because it typically increases the cost of doing business. Unions actively recruit in the workplace too, seeking to improve their numbers to generate more leverage when the next contract comes due.

Amazon uses training videos with Whole Foods to teach workers how to watch for unionizing activities. According to The Guardian, managers were instructed to tell possible union members that joining was a “roll of the dice.” One cartoon character in the video says, “Having a union could make it hard to stay competitive because they don’t share our same values.”

3. It is used as a political tool.
Collective bargaining is often associated with Democratic political fundraising efforts. The same Amazon training video mentioned in point #2 even mentions this characterization to workers, targeting Republicans and conservatives in their approach to prevent unionization. That means an undercurrent of political discrimination is sometimes used as a way to keep workers “in line” with employer expectations.

According to Open Secrets, that point is relatively accurate, with Democrats receiving about $2 million per year, while Republicans received about $200,000 each year. Some unions, however, like the National Air Traffic Controllers Association and the Airline Pilots Association, give a 50/50 split to both sides.

4. Personal differences are lost through the collective bargaining process.
Individuals come together as a group through the collective bargaining negotiation process, which means their personal needs are sometimes sacrificed for the good of the whole group. The actual conversations which hammer out the details of each contract are then handled by individuals, which means more can get lost during the process. Even when groups come together to protect common goals, there is no guarantee that the final contract will reflect their needs.

That is why most collective bargaining agreements require a vote by those represented by it to authorize its use. A majority of workers must approve it for the contract to become active. Even then, a simple majority of 50+ plus one vote is the only requirement, which means many groups can feel under-represented by the governing agreement.

5. Fair representation is not always part of the collective bargaining process.
The trend in the United States is to have unions represent all workers at an employer, even if they are not active participants in unionization activities. That is not the case in every jurisdiction. Some places with non-union members operate under a different agreement than those who receive representation. That usually means the union jobs pay better than the non-union positions. That creates a situation where a few of the workers dominate a majority of the wage resources, reducing the possibility of equal success within the workplace.

6. All workers are bound by a collective bargaining agreement.
The stipulations in most collective bargaining agreements require all parties working for a corporation to follow the rules outlined by the contract. That means a worker could start their job there without any influence on the negotiation process, then be bound by those rules without exception until the next contract period allows them to express concerns.

If new workers disagree with the collective bargaining agreement enforced at the workplace where a job waits for them, then their only option is to look for a different position somewhere else. You must agree with the terms and conditions of the current contract to be employed despite your lack of voice.

7. Collective bargaining requires workers to perform duties outside of regular working hours.
The workers who become involved with the negotiating process of a collective bargaining agreement are given a limited time to strike an agreement during their regular work hours. Many governance activities must fall outside of the regular work hours for the employees involved. That requires several hours per week sometimes in unpaid work to create the results needed for a safe, productive, and profitable workplace. This setup causes some negotiators to speed through the contract formation process, which can limit the benefits available to all workers once enforced.

8. Workers sometimes pay dues to receive representation at the bargaining table.
When unions are responsible for the collective bargaining details from the worker’s perspective, then dues are often required of the employee. Most unions take these dues straight from the paycheck, operating on either a flat fee or a percentage of the paycheck. Some unions demand up to 4% of an employee’s salary to provide representation services. Although union members can be refunded any part of their dues spent on politics, there is no guarantee in the quality of services received for this payment.

9. It creates tension in the workplace.
Union workers score consistently lower than non-union workers on the Work Environment Index published by Gallup and Healthways. Both groups are satisfied with their jobs, but union workers complain more often than their managers act like a boss instead of a partner. Union representation also reduces the amount of trust and openness found in the workplace. When this combines with slower advancement opportunities (often based on seniority), the amount of tension found in a job because of collective bargaining needs can force good workers out of their positions.

The top advantages and disadvantages of collective bargaining look to balance improve wages and working conditions with increased productivity and labor security for the employer. All parties typically give a little to get a little in the final contract, compromising to create something which is mutually beneficial to everyone. The benefits often depend on the skills of the negotiators involved and the size of a group represented, which means some agreements are less beneficial than others.

Communism is a political theory which was derived from the work of Karl Marx. He advocated for class war within a society which would eventually lead to all properties being state-owned instead of private ownership. Then each person would be paid according to the needs of their community and their unique skills and abilities.

Marx took his theories from ideas posed in the 18th century by French writer and philosopher Victor d’Hupay.

This form of government falls within the spectrum of socialism structures. Instead of common ownership belonging to the people, however, the government retains absolute control over every national resource. That reduces the impact of social classes and money, but it also limits individual freedom and decision-making opportunities.

These are a list of the most significant advantages and disadvantages which come from this form of government.

List of the Advantages of Communism

1. It reduces the impact of socioeconomic differences in society.
When Communism is enforced by the government, everyone except the top tier of government officials is on the same footing. There are few distinctions between urban or rural households. Each person plays a contributing role to the success of the country. The differences between all labor forms experience removal too, which means there are no “white collar” or “blue collar” positions. Everyone works within the industry at which they are needed, creating efficiency levels which are higher because the differences are smaller.

2. People start life off with the same opportunities.
Marx believed that democracy creates destruction over time because the “haves” would eventually stop the “have-nots” from having access to needed resources. Lower socioeconomic groups would go to “war” with the elites in society over income, property, and wealth. Communism eliminated those factors, basing it on the concept that everyone should have the same chances to create a life for themselves.Although there are exceptions to classism in Communism (namely oligarchs and high-level government officials), you don’t get a head start in life because your family is wealthy. You work based on what you’re good at doing and what others require.

3. Employment opportunities abound in Communism structures.
Everyone who wants a job under Communist supervision gets a job. Some people are compelled to work because their skills are necessary for the greater good. You don’t get to stop working because you want to live an alternative lifestyle. You do what the government tells you to do, which is usually what you’re best at doing. There are no roles considered superior over others in this government format. You’re either giving the instructions, setting the policy, or implementing what you’re told to do.
Some might argue that this concept, taking from socialism, offers more equality than what a free-market system dictates.

4. Educational opportunities increase during Communist rule.
The top priority for a Communist government when it comes to power is to offer educational opportunities to the general public. When the Communists took over the government in China in 1949, their first task was to teach people who were illiterate how to read and write. They brought vocational skills to urban and rural communities, showing people how to be productive in manufacturing, agricultural, and industrial positions. This process gave people practical skills which could be used to improve their overall quality of life – though granted, that improvement came at the discretion of the government.

5. It creates a stronger social community.
The design of Communism works toward the full inclusion of every family structure. It eliminates the idea of cultural or ethnic ideology as a minority, working toward the creation of a “new man” instead. When people focus on social cohesion through their work and role in society, they theoretically work toward a stronger nation.

List of the Disadvantages of Communism

1. Public ownership structures are easily manipulated by others.
Because there is no private ownership involved with communism, the public nature of all properties creates a higher risk of abuse. Those who are at the highest levels of government within this structure control the most resources. If they decide to make changes within society, then no one can do anything to stop them. You are always at the mercy of what the governing officials decide to do with your property, your job, and your resource accessibility.

2. Most employment opportunities are in the agricultural sector.
Communist governments restrict trade and commerce unless the needs of the State require additional resources. When the Soviet Union existed, their trade activities with the Western industrialized countries (the U.S., Canada, Japan, and Australia) involved either a direct exchange of one item for another or purchases made on cash or credit. They might decide to trade vodka for soft drinks, for example, or offer a direct cash payment for specific items they would import.

That means most employment opportunities involve the agricultural sector under Communism. There is no society if food resources are scarce. Everyone might have a job and do something that they’re great at, but it almost always involves this sector in some way.

3. Individual rights are not a top priority under Communist rule.
The goal of Communism, and socialism to some extent, is to increase the well being of the entire community. This goal occurs when everyone works together for the common good. The difference between Communism and socialism is that the latter still respects individual rights.

Communism dictates almost every goal or need of the individual. You are only free to pursue your interests if they contribute to the welfare of the whole. Individuals receive role assignments that shift whenever the needs of the government change. Socialism permits individuals to pursue whatever ventures they wish after their work for the community is finished because the group self-governs themselves without a secondary central authority in the mix.

4. Opposition is not permitted in Communism unless the central authority authorizes it.
Only one entity, the oversight state, controls the agenda, messaging, and performance of society under Communist rule. The government controls the law at all times. They can instantly decide if actions or conduct of individuals should become illegal, then apply those changes retroactively if they so choose. This government format uses absolute rule over all commercial or industrial production unless they authorize someone else to control those components of society. If you do not receive authority to offer opposition, engage in innovation, or pursue entrepreneurism, then there is a good chance that you have violated the law (or will be found in violation in the future).

The result meant actions like profiteering could be viewed as a counter-revolutionary activity, which would result in a death penalty declaration. The Soviet Civil Code (much of which is still used today by governments in China, Cuba, and other Communist states) abolished civil liberties, protection of law, and the rule of law.

5. Communism makes no distinction between propaganda and education.
Offering education to everyone sounds like an advantage under Communism, but it creates results in reverse. Indoctrination, education, and propaganda work together to change the perspectives of the general population. Everything from textbooks to newspaper articles is carefully directed, managed, and monitored to produce results. They might offer reading and writing essentials to the general population, but in return, they ask for compliance in every aspect of life.

6. Dissent is not permitted under Communist rule.
There are three notable uprisings against the Chinese government since 1949, including the Tibetan uprising, the Tiananmen Square protests, and the Falun Gong practitioners. Tens of thousands of people were involved in this surge of dissent, so the government pursued a combination of censorship, imprisonment, suppression, and “labor re-education” to stop the activities of activists or dissidents.

Dissidents in the Soviet Union faced an even worse fate, including forced admittance to mental hospitals, entry to a labor camp, or general exile. Because dissent was considered a criminal act, it could result in lengthy prison sentences too.

7. There is no way to change the behaviors of the ruling group from within.
Communism bases its ideas on a totalitarian system. There are no mechanisms within that kind of government to create change from the inside. That leaves people with two options if they find their circumstances are growing worse: encourage an epiphany within the government or become outspoken about the issues. When Communism encounters a voice which doesn’t support it, the first effort involves immediate suppression through repression. People disappear frequently, even today, because of how the government is perceived.

Forced disappearances occur when the state secretly imprisons or abducts someone, then refuses to acknowledge their whereabouts or fate. That places the individual outside of the protection which global laws provide. Under Communist rule, forced disappearance implies either murder or long-term forced labor with plausible deniability.

8. It reduces levels of meaningful employment in society.
Communism doesn’t earn you a paycheck. It gives you the right to continue living with the basic essentials and not much more. You’re not permitted hobbies because that is labor which does not benefit society. The goal is to have you help everyone else in exchange for not needing to worry about basic needs. The Soviet Union enforced this structure so thoroughly that they even enacted “jean crimes” because people wanted denim clothing instead of what the government provided everyone.

Life noted in 1972 that a single pair of jeans could sell on the black market in the Soviet Union for a full month’s salary for the average Soviet worker.

9. Individuals are given income limits to follow.
Wealth belongs to the government when following the teachings of Communism. That means you have limits on the amount of cash you’re able to save for a rainy day. Once you earn your capped salary level from your employment, the remainder goes to the government for redistribution unless specific exemptions are authorized. That provides less incentive to work harder than needed since you’re guaranteed a specific income and nothing more. Families push their children toward specific careers which may not have those exemptions to help them live a better life than they are because of this structure.

10. The outcome of Communism is often poverty.
Communism might suggest that everyone benefits from its structure, but it is the opposite which occurs most often. The government can change the rules at any time to help themselves. They declare how much economic growth occurs, who benefits from it, and industrial emphasis in each community. This might give the government ways to respond quickly during emergency situations, but it also puts the population at the mercy of the whims of the State. Most people live in poverty under Communism unless free-market exceptions, like those passed in recent decades by China, allow for some freedoms under the structure.

The pros and cons of Communism were first offered as a way to counter the negative impacts of democracy and free-market systems. As part of the socialism spectrum, it is arguably the most invasive and dangerous form of government still in use today. Although there are some potential benefits to look at from an outside perspective, the reality of this governing type is that it hurts more people than it ever tries to help.

Scrum methodology is used for managing knowledge work, often with an emphasis on software development. Teams of up to 9 members, but with a minimum of 3, will break their work into actions that are timed as sprints. Most sprints are 2 weeks in length, but there are some which may last for a month.

Then daily 15-minute meetings, called daily scrums, create accountability by tracking personal progress. Here are the pros and cons of this methodology to consider.

List of the Pros of Scrum Methodology

1. It creates a system of transparency.
Daily scrums do more than keep workers accountable to their assignments. It is also a way for a company to maintain their transparency with their clients.

2. It offers motivation on multiple levels.
Teams are motivated using this methodology because there are defined deadlines and expectations to meet. Individuals are motivated by the rewards that are offered (or at least should be offered) for meeting or exceeding expectations. This system creates a stronger set of knowledge work that can be presented to the client.

3. It provides continuous feedback.
Because this methodology requires daily check-ins for progress reports, there is always feedback offered at the team and individual level. This helps to make the project better in the long run.

List of the Cons of Scrum Methodology

1. It does not care about the final project deadline.
The scrum methodology uses personal deadlines to create a specific amount of work. It does not take the project deadline into account. The only real requirement is that each person or team meet expectations.

2. It requires a team environment.
Individuals can follow the concepts of scrum methodology, but this format is designed to work with a team of at least 3 people. It’s only suitable for small teams as well. If there are 10+ people involved, it doesn’t work as well.

3. It requires experience.
Feedback can be provided to teams and individuals through relevant experience only. If the individual or team that offers feedback is not experienced in the work being done, then the entire system breaks down.

The scrum methodology pros and cons indicate a high pressure, high stress environment can be managed successfully through this process. Some people, however, may not respond well to that stress. That is why this methodology is useful only in specific situations.

Conformity is a type of social influence which creates a change in behavior or beliefs in an individual so that they can fit in with a specific group. This change happens as a response to either real or imagined pressure and expectations that come from the group. It may involve the physical presence of other people, the pressure of societal norms, or a general aspiration to achieve a specific level of success.

Group pressures can take on many different forms. Teasing, criticism, and bullying are all common methods used to generate conformity and society. Some people make changes because of this pressure because they want to be liked or feel like they belong. Others may embrace this concept as a way to ensure that they are in the majority position for significant decisions that must be made.

Three different types of conformity are currently recognized: compliance, internalization, and identification. They can be either positive or negative influences, depending on what the outcome of the group wants with the individual.

These are the pros and cons of conformity and society that are essential to review.

List of the Pros of Conformity in Society

1. Conformity can help you abandon your bad habits.
Peer groups can do an excellent job of helping you remove the bad habits from your life. If you happen to always arrive late for an event or meeting, then the pressure placed by the group to make changes in your life that stop this issue can help you make positive changes to your behaviors. Even if the only reason why you make these changes is to be liked by your peer group, the outcome still creates a positive result in your life.

2. Conformity helps you to reveal the unknown.
There are many children who grew up under the watchful eye of their parents in the shelter and home life. They were not exposed to the pros and cons of each decision that the world offers. When are you coming to contact with your peers from this type of environment, you will discover what they like and what they dislike. You will then become familiar with their reactions in specific situations. This process gives you more information about human behavioral patterns, which can lead to insights in your own life. It will offer to help you make better decisions because you have more information to use.

3. Conformity can help you develop good habits.
People are observational. Whether you’re at work, at school, or even a religious gathering, you are observing the positive traits in the personalities that surround you. What you experience in the circumstances will motivate you to create positive habits in your own daily routine that generate positive results. If you see someone who walks their dog around the neighborhood every morning for exercise, that might inspire you to do something similar.

When we see other people making positive choices, we want to join along with that activity because the benefits of a positive outcome outweigh the risks of experiencing an adverse circumstance.

4. Conformity aids in rule enforcement.
Every society has rules for people to follow for a specific purpose. If we were to live somewhere allowed anyone to set their own expectations for what their life should be, then we would create a challenging place where it would be difficult for anyone to find success. The rules of a society are enforced through the processes of conformity. We work with one another to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to meet their goals. We create penalties for those who do not follow those rules to ensure harmony can occur.

This process happens in every society. Even friendships set rules that have consequences if someone breaks them. We place pressure on one another because it helps us to succeed, while we also get an opportunity to help everyone else find success too.

5. Conformity offers protection against outside threats.
When someone conforms to society, they receive protection from other outside threats that could impact their lives and negative ways. We know for a fact that there is strength in numbers. Our ancestors had to form societies to protect themselves against wild animals and other tribes. Today, we do the same thing by developing nations, communities, and neighborhoods to ensure our mutual survival. When each member stays strong and conforms set the expectations of everyone else, there was a natural wall of protection that forms.

6. Conformity creates a safety net.
There will always be people who choose not to conform to society. Those that do choose to take this action help those who decide not to follow the rules because they continue to live within a realm of social acceptability. This activity creates a safe place for everyone to live. There are numerous ways that these structures are implemented, with many of them administered through social programs that are overseen by the government. We often agree that our personal definition of success is due to the ability we have as a group to care for everyone when they are in need.

7. Conformity makes the work easier for everyone.
The goal of conforming to society is one that seeks eternal harmony. People who choose to take this path want to see their society continue to benefit others in positive ways. One of the outcomes of this process is to distribute work fairly throughout the group. Everyone pays their fair share in productivity, taxation, and even volunteerism. The group sees that there is a greater good which can be achieved when everyone works together to accomplish a goal.

List of the Cons of Conformity in Society

1. Conformity often hampers personal progress.
The company that a person chooses to keep becomes a direct reflection of the success that they’re able to achieve. If you surround yourself with positive influences, then your desire for conformity will create beneficial outcomes for you. The opposite occurs if you surround yourself with negative peers. Bad influences can ruin your chances at success in a variety of ways. Students might find that conformity, for example, leads them to smoke or use drugs against their will because they want to be excepted by their peer group. That can lead to health issues and poor grades.

2. Conformity increases the chances of depression.
The fear of social rejection is something that most people face at least once in their lives. It creates a feeling that compels you to blindly follow the people that you want to have like you. Most don’t even give it a second thought. The moment that you express an opinion in front of this group that doesn’t jive with what the majority believes is right, then there is a good chance that negative influences will be placed upon you to change your mind. If you succumb to this pressure, then the emotional reaction in either direction increases the chances of depression forming over time.

3. Conformity causes you to lose your identity.
The actions that groups play some individuals to make them conform creates a dangerous issue because it forces a loss of personal identity. Each person is uniquely different from every other. You might choose to go to a party and be the designated driver because you don’t like alcohol. If your friend starts teasing you because you’re not drinking like they are, however, then you can be coaxed into doing something that you don’t want to do. That means you’re behaving in a way that is contrary to what your value systems dictate.

4. Conformity doesn’t encourage change in the world.
Although conformity in society encourages individuals to make changes that bring them closer to the majority, the reality of this process is that it doesn’t impact mobile societies. We do not experience change as a group because there is a preference to not “rock the boat.” There must be people who are unwilling to change in any circumstance to drive results.

You must have access to a system of checks and balances within our society to help determine a fair definition of equality. If everyone were to conform to do the same thing all the time without questioning the rules, it would be challenging to find moments of innovation.

5. Conformity can create an unjust world.
We want to think that all societies are based on the overall good that humanity can achieve. The reality of life is that things are very different. All one has to do is look at the impact of Nazi Germany on the world in the 20th century to understand that power can be used for evil just as it can be used for good. There is no excuse for someone to conform to society when the outcome harms others. Many in Germany during World War II set they participated in the Holocaust because they were following orders. That’s conformity.

6. Conformity can lead to dependence.
When people choose to conform to groups instead of turning their own course, they begin to give things over to the Society to which they want to belong. This process often occurs without the person even giving that element of their life a second thought. Although it is a good thing for society to experience the talents and skills that someone can bring to it, there must also be a consideration for independent thought. Blindly handing over your assets for social gratification only benefits the people who receive those items.

7. Conformity often leads to apathy.
The desire for conformity on an individual level often creates a group apathy that becomes prevalent in society. The people who try to conform often feel like they can do the same things that the groups they observe are doing in the current moment. When they are on able to achieve that success, they look to a higher power to handle whatever problems they feel are impacting their efforts. Blind trust always creates problems in a society. It also generates feelings were people decide that issues are not their problem. They decided that everyone else should handle the situation and place pressure on others just as their preferred groups place it on them.

8. Conformity encourages a lack of diversity.
The action of conformity in society will always reduce diversity. People will be getting filtering toward groups that make them feel comfortable. Groups will then combine with others to create communities that share like-minded approaches. Communities get together into parties that share similar platforms that seek out a specific definition of success. Without checks and balances on the systems, the guidelines and believes that people would have would eventually all become the same. There would be no color in the world.

The pros and cons of conformity in society show us that we need people who “go along to get along” just like we require some individuals to have the courage to step out on their own. When we have both groups active at any relationship level, then there is balance to the group. Conformists cannot exist without others who are unwilling to make changes. There must be rules – and we must have rule breakers. Which one are you?

Although 31 states have currently banned the practice of corporal punishment, there are 19 states which permit it to be used in schools. It is defined as a physical punishment which involves hitting someone. Most schools will practice corporal punishment through the use of paddling or a hand in the form of spanking.

There are extreme instances of corporal punishment practiced in schools that use tasers, chemical sprays, and leather straps.

Even though 94% of parents with children under four years of age report that they have spent their child at least once with in the past year, and another 76% of men say that a child sometimes needs to be spanked, corporal punishment in schools remains a controversial subject.

Is it OK to hit a child as a form of discipline? What alternative forms of punishment for negative behaviors be more appropriate? These are the pros and cons of corporal punishment to review.

List of the Pros of Corporal Punishment

1. It can be useful when used in moderation.
Most of the concerns which are associated with the use of corporal punishment come from using it excessively. The occasional use of physical punishment because of serious behavioral issues can’t be appropriate for some children when other disciplinary actions have not yelled at results. Taking away toys, or assigning a timeout spot, are not always valid with rambunctious children.

Some kids prefer to push the limits of the adults around them to understand what structures are appropriate. These are the children who typically respond in severe circumstances to a physical consequence that is appropriate for the behaviors they have chosen.

2. It sets clear boundaries that motivate children to behave at home or in school.
Kids make better decisions about their actions and behaviors when they understand what the penalties for misbehaving happen to be. This process allows each child to exercise and enhanced level of self-control. Advantages like this occur when the child understands that there are specific boundaries which cannot be crossed in certain circumstances.

The effect of corporal punishment can prevent children from continuing on with her negative choices that may want to allow them to accept criminal behavior that is something which is societally acceptable.

3. It tends to be a choice that students prefer.
Students were given a choice between detention, suspension, or corporal punishment will often choose the latter. That is because it is a swift punishment which doesn’t cause older kids to miss classes, activities, or valuable time on the playground. Disadvantage allows the child education to remain on interrupted, reducing the need for make-up work because they are missing class instructions.

4. It follows very precise rules when implemented.
Although some school districts do not offer guidance to their teachers or administrators regarding the application of corporal punishment, most have rules which must be followed when this disciplinary action is implemented. Louisiana’s Central Parish requires that three swats what’s the panel that is about 20 inches long and 4 inches wide is the appropriate punishment.

5. It creates a shock factor for children.
Kids don’t always realize that they’re about to rush into a dangerous situation. The behaviors that they display at school or at home may not seem like a poor decision to them. Corporal punishment, in whatever form it is applied, creates a shocking circumstance for the child which helps them to remember that their choices could create harm in some way.

Although spanking may not change short-term behaviors, it does create a message which can ring out loud and clear to children who are exploring boundaries. The circumstances around the consequence create a lasting memory which sticks with them for months or years afterward.

6. It requires parents for professionals to follow up after the consequence is administered.
One of the reasons why corporal punishment, what usually takes the form of spanking, feels like an abusive situation it’s because the physical consequences are only given. Parents, teachers, and administrators must follow up with each child after a consequence to ensure that they understand the reasons why it was given. This outcome only occurs when the consequence is provided in an environment which is loving and calm.

Most of the disadvantages that come with the use of corporal punishment are directly associated with its use when a parent or teacher are frustrated in the heat of the moment. Spanking, or any other form of physical consequences, should never be handed out when the person doing it feels anger toward the child.

7. It can be a way to teach respect for some children.
The use of corporal punishment instills a level of respect in kids who struggle to interact with authority figures. It establishes a boundary between who is in charge, and what the rules happen to be. This process can then help to lay the groundwork for some children to understand the moments where they are asked to listen compared to the moments when they are allowed to explore personal choices with more freedom.

8. Every method of discipline is ineffective at some point.
When you are trying to discipline a two-year-old, there comes a time at that age when no disciplinary method really works well. Any technique that is repeated enough times, including spanking and corporal punishment, will eventually get through to the child.

Although there can be some long-term consequences for children when this method of discipline is not applied in a loving environment, the benefits of using yet often outweigh the potential outcomes which would occur if no form of discipline was used at all.

List of the Cons of Corporal Punishment

1. Corporal punishment inflicts long-term harm both physically and mentally on children.
Children who receive physical punishment for their problematic behaviors are more likely to respond with aggression and have problems with attention compared to students who receive other forms of consequences. Studies have shown that frequent use of corporal punishment increases the risks of substance abuse, depression, stress, and anxiety for children of all ages. Kids who experience this type of discipline are also more likely to relate to various forms of violence involving power, which means they are more likely than the general population to become abusive later in life or display bullying behaviors.

2. Corporal punishment creates unsafe environments.
Whether physical punishments are used at home or in school, the American Academy of Pediatrics states that such consequences contribute to violent and disruptive behaviors in children. Kids to experience corporal punishment are more likely to hit other people as a method of circumstance to get their way. This behavior increases the risk of physical abuse within the classroom, at home, and even in public situations. The use of corporal punishment will signal to a child that this is the best way to settle and interpersonal conflict, which is why they turn to this behavior when they need something.

3. Corporal punishment harms the educational process for children.
Research into corporal punishment has shown that it has negative of fax, which is why it has been banned in military training and prisons in the United States. Even animals are protected from this type of punishment in all 50 states. When it occurs in a school, the students who are exposed to physical punishment as early as kindergarten are more likely to have lower vocabulary scores by the time they reach fourth grade. They also have lower fifth-grade math scores.

The schools in states were corporal punishment is permitted perform worse on the national academic assessment each year compared to the states that prohibit corporal punishment.

4. It is a practice which is banned by a majority of the developed world.
There are 54 countries which banned corporal punishment in every circumstance, including as a consequence option for parents at home. Other countries ban corporal punishment in most circumstances. There are only nine countries in the world which do not have any restrictions on the use of corporal punishment in any circumstance. Those nations are Guiana, Botswana, Malaysia, Nigeria, Palestine, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, and Tanzania.

The response of the United States to the use of corporal punishment involves using it as a traditional means of disciplinary action instead of having a logical reason for it. As Daryl Scoggin, the superintendent of the school district and Tate County, Mississippi, told EdWeek.org, “it’s kind of like, I had it done to me, and so I knew what I needed to do. I guess it’s more that you learn by watching. We don’t practice on dummies or anything like that.”

5. There is the potential that someone could administer it incorrectly.
The most effective use of corporal punishment involves children who are in the preschool age range which have committed willful disobedience. It should never be used when a young child decides to commit a small act of defiance. Infants should never receive a physical consequence because they do not have the capability to understand the difference between a right or wrong decision. Older children with strong communication abilities might experience a better outcome if they were given a chance to speak about their behaviors in a safe environment.

If corporal punishment is administered incorrectly, the likely outcome is that the child will feel guilt or shame that is not associated with the behaviors that someone is trying to correct. The risks of resorting to this consequence in a moment of anger are what limit its overall effectiveness.

6. It creates an environment of fear for the child.
Although there are advantages in the creation of a shock factor when trying to teach a child a lesson, there is a difference between teaching through fear and teaching through love and concern. Far too often, kids see the administration of a physical consequence as a reason to fear the person who is giving it out. That expression of emotion doesn’t create a respectful relationship between the child and the other party involved. It creates compliance due to fear of another physical consequence instead.

This process creates a circumstance where the child may still not understand the difference between right and wrong. Their choices become based on deciding whether or not they want to receive the corporal punishment.

7. There is a fine line between discipline and abuse with corporal punishment.
There were 41 children placed into foster care by state officials in Georgia in 2001 because of allegations that the congregation of a church we’re beating these kids at the urging of their pastor. When interviewed about their behaviors, the members of the church said that they whipped the kids because it was a punishment for their incorrect choices. The parents involved refused an offer by the state to have their kids return and exchange for agreeing not to use corporal punishment in that way.

8. It communicates a set of values that one may not want their children to have.
The use of corporal punishment, even though it becomes a disciplinary tool, is a way to communicate specific values to a child. As Dr. Alvin Rosenfeld, co-author of a book about hyperparenting, tells WebMD: “our children almost invariably pick up our values as we live them. So, if we demonstrate to our kids that hitting is an appropriate way to deal with this pleasure, we shouldn’t be surprised when they do the same thing.”

9. It has the same failure rate as other forms of discipline.
Dr. Murray A. Strauss, co-Director of the Family Research Laboratory, says that there is one reason why spanking and other forms of corporal punishment feel like an effective approach. He says that spanking offers the same immediate failure rate as other disciplinary measures that parents try. The reason why it seems like the right course of action to take for consequences is that it is there a method of last resort.

10. It creates a risk of injury to the child.
The size difference between an adult and a child creates the risk of injury to kids who receive corporal punishment. That is one of the many reasons why parents to use physical punishment in the past expressed regret for their decisions today. Those who do keep using it tend to have received it themselves when they were growing up. This process creates a cycle of behavior that makes more likely for some children to experience injuries because of their discipline that could be worse than the natural outcome of a poor decision.

These pros and cons of corporal punishment are not intended to serve as a moral guideline for those who preferred to use it or for those who avoid it. There are tangible consequences which can last for a lifetime when children are exposed to corporal punishment over a long time. This approach may also teach some children specific boundaries of safety, like remembering to look both ways before crossing the street, that can protect them from harm as they grow up. Each family, and each school district, must make decisions that reflect what will best serve the needs of their children.

If there is one universal truth to be found in life, it is that people are continually changing. Humanity is continually evolving and adapting to new circumstances. This evolutionary process allows us to develop in ways that our ancestors never thought possible.

Cultural relativism is a process which encourages the individual to define the rightness or wrongness of their ethics and morality on their own circumstances. It gives people an opportunity to change who they are at a core level without suffering consequences because of those actions. It eliminates the rigid rules that societies often create, sometimes unwritten, that require people to think, speak, and act in specific ways.

In the process of cultural relativism removes all definitions from a society. It always promotes an individualistic perspective. Every person must have their own moral code which they choose to follow.

There are specific advantages and disadvantages to review when looking at a society that is based on this concept. These are the critical cultural relativism pros and cons to consider.

List of the Pros of Cultural Relativism

1. Cultural relativism removes the power of societal conditioning.
There is no longer a need to conform to society as an individual when cultural relativism is the driving force. You are no longer required to adapt to the beliefs, thoughts, or attitudes of the groups that surround you. It is up to you to charge your own course through life. This process stops the slow degradation that all societies face when everyone tries to be just like anyone else.

2. Cultural relativism allows for the creation of individual moral codes.
The structures of cultural relativism allow each person to consult with the expectations of their culture or society to determine what they believe is right or wrong. This process creates a simple test which dictates how each individual reacts when they counter specific circumstances. You are always in charge of what you believe is a moral choice. You decide of actions are permitted or disallowed. Although this structure can define morality outside of what would be considered traditional rules, societies create a culture which invites inclusion over structure exclusion in almost every circumstance.

3. Cultural relativism does not rely on moral relativism.
The theory of cultural relativism treats each culture as an individual. The moral codes of each person, along with each expectation, are implemented by those who defined themselves through that individuality. Some cultures may prefer restrictions. Others might prefer full inclusion. It is a process which encourages each person to do what makes the most sense for them to achieve their definition of ethics and morality in each situation.

4. Cultural relativism creates a society which is free from judgment.
One of the primary advantages of cultural relativism is that it completely removes negative judgments from individual interaction. We’ve become so trained as humans to judge others when we see something different that half the time we don’t even think about it. Anytime we push someone down to lift ourselves up, we have judged that person to be inferior to our superiority.

Cultural relativism takes this all the way. Even if someone disagrees with how you define your moral code in the structure, your morality equates to their morality exactly. You both have the opportunity to define the expectations of life that you follow.

5. Cultural relativism preserves human culture.
When you trace the history of humanity through time, you find that societies are diverse in their ideas, traditions, and practices. We often set aside this history because we’re attempting to conform to the expectations that third parties place upon us. This structure does not require anyone to trade any of their culture at any time. You decide, just like everyone else chooses, what is the best course of action to take in every situation.

6. Cultural relativism encourages respect.
Even though there is a focus on individuality within a society that practice is cultural relativism, there is also respect for their diversity. Different ideas and ethnicities are frequently celebrated. This system promotes individual definitions instead of group definitions as an evolutionary process, which allows each person to pursue goals through their own perspective while focusing on their natural strengths. No one is ever forced to conform to a specific set of rules or values as a way to achieve success.

7. Cultural relativism promotes cooperation.
Humanity is strong because we are diverse. Each person offers a different perspective on life that is based on their thoughts, education, and experiences. These differences should not be a foundation for fear. They ought to be the basis of cooperation. We are able to do more as a team then we are as individuals. By combining each unique set of values with individualized moral descriptions, productivity levels quickly rise.

8. Cultural relativism creates a society which is authentically equal.
The traditional society forces people to rise to the top by climbing over other people along the way. You are encouraged to discriminate against anyone if success as your primary goal. Cultural relativism prevents this because it encourages each person to define the path they must follow. There will still be people who choose a skin color preference, or a gender preference, or a sexual orientation preference over others. What you will find with the structure, however, is that the plethora of individual perspectives melts into a society which is able to create great things.

List of the Cons of Cultural Relativism

1. Cultural relativism creates a society that is fueled through personal bias.
People grow up in specific environments where different truths are taught. Some families are incredibly inclusive, while others focus on racial bias. Cultural relativism encourages individuals to form alliances with those who have similar perspectives instead of sharing different outcomes. Community segregation occurs frequently because of the discomfort levels which occur when different definitions are present. People will always follow their own moral codes and ethics at the expense of others in a society with the structure.

2. Cultural relativism only works if humanity is perfect.
Most people would agree that the average person tries to do good things every day. The average individual would like to see everyone have the opportunity to pursue their dreams or goals in some way. It is these concepts which create a temptation to follow the processes is defined by cultural relativism. The issue in doing so is that every person is fallible. Humans lie, cheat, and steal. We can get angry when something doesn’t go our way, and that puts ourselves and our families at risk. There must be a moral code that governs groups in society to create enough checks and balances to deal with these imperfections.

Without this accompanying structure, the moral codes of the individual would reign supreme. That means we would be operating on the idea of perfection while pursuing imperfection.

3. Cultural relativism drives people away from one another.
C.S. Lewis described what environment focused on cultural relativism would be like in his work called “The Screwtape Letters.” Each person what attempt to get as far away as possible from every other individual to escape whatever personal demons they would have. There would be no guarantees in a society like this that you would ever be safe. Someone’s moral code could dictate that you need to die because that will help that person feel better. Although the theory suggests that it would embrace diversity, the reality is that people would isolate themselves as a way to protect their lives.

4. Cultural relativism would create a world of chaos.
The idea that someone could follow their own moral code at any time because there is no concrete definition of right or wrong would create chaos. Anyone could harm any other person at any time. You could take something from the store because you felt like it was the right thing to do. You could disobey any of the laws (assuming there were some enforced) because you felt that they were unjustly applied. Only the strongest would survive this type of situation, which brings it closer to an apocalyptic version of the future instead of something that is realistic.

5. Cultural relativism would promote a lack of diversity.
The only diversity that cultural relativism promotes is the individual perspective. All of the rights that so many of our ancestors fought to have for generations would disappear instantly with this societal format. The only standards that people could follow in this scenario would be the ones that they set for themselves. Each person will then pursue their own position of strength. It is impossible to create a society that is diverse when the emphasis on success is based on selfish accomplishments.

6. Cultural relativism allows opinions and perceptions to become universal truths.
Any theory becomes the truth if cultural relativism is implemented for society. What you think or feel becomes a reality, even if you imagined things. That is the most significant disadvantage of this concept. An opinion instantly becomes fact. Perceptions become real. You could make up a story, included in your personal morality, and there would be nothing that anyone could do to stop you from achieving whatever outcome it is that you wanted.

7. Cultural relativism would limit the progress of humanity.
Some people see the concept of cultural relativism as an evolution of the human experience. The reality of this idea, however, is that it would limit our progress. If you remove judgment from a society completely, then there are no standards to follow. We would no longer have the ability to effectively compare different societies, past or present, to chart away toward the future. There could be no real definition of success for humanity because we would all be operating within an individual culture. Even though each person could see personal progress, there would be billions of people all going in different directions at the same time.

These cultural relativism pros and cons our reflection of the possible outcomes which would occur should this theoretical system be implemented at some point. It is an idea which was initially proposed by Franz Boas in the late 19th century and has never been implemented on a scale that would affect alarm society. If we were to follow this idea, then we would be creating individualized cultures, not group societies, and that would change the world as we know it.

Human civilizations have used the death penalty in their set of laws for over 4,000 years. There have been times when only a few crimes receive this consequence, while some societies, such as the seventh century B.C.’s Code of Athens required the punishment for all crimes to be death.

The death penalty in the United States came about because of the influences from the colonial era. The first recorded execution in the colonies occurred in 1608 in Jamestown. Captain George Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain. It only took four more years for Virginia tech institute the death penalty for minor offenses such as stealing grapes or trading with Native Americans.

Capital punishment is reserve today for brutal and heinous crimes, such as first-degree murder. Some countries expand the death penalty for repetitive violent crime, such as rape, sexual assault, or specific drug offenses. The reason why it continues to be in criminal justice systems is that spending life in prison is a disproportionate penalty compared to the actions that were taken.

These are the death penalty pros and cons to review as we head into 2020 and beyond.

List of the Pros of the Death Penalty

1. It is a way to provide justice for victims well keeping the general population safe.
There is an expectation in society that you should be able to live your life without the threat of harm. When there is someone who decides to go against this expectation by committing a violent crime, then there must be steps taken to provide everyone else the safety that they deserve. Although arguments can be made for rehabilitation, there are people who would continue their violent tendencies no matter what. The only way to keep people safe in those circumstances, and still provide a sense of justice for the victims, is the use of the death penalty.

2. It provides a deterrent against serious crimes.
The reason why there are consequences in place for criminal violations is that we want to have a deterrent effect on specific behaviors. People who are considering a breach of the law must see that the consequences of their actions are worse if they go through without action compared to following the structures society.

Although up to 88% of criminologists in the United States report that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent to homicide, the fact that it can prevent some violence does make it a useful structure to have in society.

3. It offers a respectful outcome.
Two critical elements of justice in modern societies involve punishments for criminal behavior that do not involve cruelty or unusual circumstances. That structure has led the United States to implement capital punishment which involves lethal injections. Although some regions struggle to purchase the necessary drugs to administer this consequence, the process of putting someone to sleep before they stop breathing in their heart stops beating eliminates the pain and negative outcomes associated with other execution methods.

Modern processes are much more compassionate compared to hanging, firing squads, or other gruesome methods of taking a life under the law.

4. It maintains prison populations at manageable levels.
Over 2 million people are currently part of the prison population in the United States. About one in five people currently in jails across the country are awaiting trial for charges that they face. That is about the same amount of people who are labeled as being violent offenders. By separating those who are convicted of a capital crime, we create more room for the individuals who are willing to work and rehabilitation programs to better their lives in the future. This structure makes it possible to limit the financial and spatial impacts which occur when all serious crime requires long-term prisoner care.

5. It offers society an appropriate consequence for violent behavior.
There are times when rehabilitation should be the top priority for criminals. Then there are times when violent conduct is the preferred behavior for a criminal. By keeping capital punishment as an option within society, we create an appropriate consequence that fits the actions taken by the criminal. The death penalty ensures that the individual involved will no longer be able to create havoc for the general population because they are no longer around. That process creates peace for the victims, their families, and the society in general.

6. It eliminates sympathetic reactions to the criminal charged with a capital crime.
The United States offers a confrontational system of justice because that is an effective way to address the facts of the case. We should make decisions based on logic instead of emotion. The lawn must be able to address the actions of a criminal in a way that discourages other people from deciding to conduct themselves in a similar manner. Our goal should be to address the needs of each victim and their family more than it should be to address the physical needs of the person charged with a capital crime.

7. It stops the threat of an escape that alternative sentences would create.
The fastest way to stop a murderer from continuing to kill people is to eliminate their ability to do so. That is what capital punishment does. The death penalty makes it impossible for someone convicted of murder to find ways that kill other people. Failing to execute someone who is taking a life unjustly, who that is able to kill someone else, puts all of us into a place of responsibility for that action. Although there are issues from a moral standpoint about taking any life, we must remember that the convicted criminal made the decision to violate the law in the first place, knowing full well what their potential outcome would be.

List of the Cons of the Death Penalty

1. It requires one person to kill another person.
In an op ad published by the New York Times, S. Frank Thompson discussed his experience in executing to inmates while serving as the superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary. He talked about how the death penalty laws forced him to be personally involved in these executions. He came to a point where on the moral level, life had to either be honored or not. His job requires him to kill someone else. Whether someone takes at life through criminal means, or they do so through legal means, there is still an impact on that individual which is unpredictable.

2. It comes with constitutional defects in the United States.
In the 1970s, the Supreme Court of the United States effectively punted the idea of having capital punishment being legal to the states. The goal was to create a system where there would be limitations on the suffering of a prisoner sentenced to death row by allowing states to create their own laws and procedures.

After four decades of surveys, studies, and experiences with the death penalty, there are three specific defects which continue to exist. There is unreliability in the systems that are used to put prisoners to death, we have delays that can last for 20 years or more before initiating a sentence, and the application of capital punishment is arbitrary. That is why many places have simply abandoned its use.

3. It does not have a positive impact on homicide rates.
The United States implement it the death penalty 35 times in 2014. Crime statistics for that year indicating that there were 14,000 murders committed. Any criminal caught facing a consequence that involved spending their life in prison would find that outcome to be far more devastating than the idea that they might be put to death one day after they grow old. People who don’t think that they’ll be cut for their actions don’t really care what the law has to say because they don’t expect to ever spend time in jail in the first place.

Statistics on crime actually show that when the death penalty is abolished, replaced with a guaranteed life in prison, there are few were violent acts committed which put a person’s life at risk.

4. It creates a revenge factor, which may not best serve justice.
No one can blame families were victims for wanting justice. There is enough justification because of their pain and loss to even understand concepts like vengeance. The problem that we have with the death penalty, however, is that it implements only one form of justice. You’re creating within society this idea that if you do something to me, I get to do the exact same thing back to you.

The purpose of justice is to create a circumstance where there is a legitimate high ground for morality. If we permit the state to kill people as a consequence for their own murderous decisions, then we devalue life itself. Just because we have the law on our side does not mean putting someone to death is a decision which is morally correct.

5. It costs more to implement the death penalty.
The average case brought to trial which involves the death penalty creates a taxpayer cost of $1.26 million. Cases that are taken to a jury which do not involve capital punishment have an average cost of $740,000. Even when you compare the costs of maintaining a prisoner in the general population compared to keeping someone on death row, taxpayers save money by avoiding the death penalty.

Maintaining a prisoner on death row costs $90,000 more per year then keeping that person in the general population. When one considers the cost in keeping someone on death row for 20 years or more, it is cheaper to send someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole in most states that it is to put them to death.

6. It comes with a risk that an innocent person could be executed.
Although we like to think that our criminal justice systems are perfect, they are far from it. In the past few years, there have been over 150 people taken off of death row because evidence showed that they were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. We would like to think that no one who is innocent would encounter this penalty, but the reality is that this is not the case.

There are several cases where prosecutors knowingly withheld exculpatory information. There are times when the justice system introduces false pieces of evidence against defendants because they’re looking to create specific metrics. People can be coerced into entering a guilty plea, or admitting their guilt, because of external pressures placed on them. That is not justice.

7. It does not always provide the sense of justice that families require.
Research published in 2012 by the Marquette Law Review found that the family of the victim experience higher levels of psychological, physical, and behavioral health when the convicted criminal who tore the family apart is sentenced to life in prison instead of given a capital punishment consequence. The death penalty might be considered an ultimate form of justice, but it does not always provide the satisfaction people think it will once it is administered.

8. It does not seek alternative solutions.
There are numerous ways to prevent someone from breaking out of a president to hurt someone else. About one in every nine people in the U.S. is the population is currently serving a life sentence. Many more are serving a sentence that keeps them in prison for the rest of their lives because it will last for 15 years or more. Crime is at historic lows, but life sentences are nearly 5 times higher today than they were in the 1980s. Most of these prisoners never escape.

In 2013, the rate of escape from prison dropped by more than 50%, falling to just 10.5 escapees per 10,000 prisoners.

9. It automatically assumes that the person in question cannot be rehabilitated.
There will always be people who decide they want to live outside of societal norms. It is true that these people may never successfully go through a rehabilitation process after committing a crime. What the death penalty does make an assumption about what the outcome will be for each person convicted of a crime. There are no meaningful ways for capital punishment to offer a way to make amends. It suggests that there is no other way to help society except to get rid of that person who committed the crime. That could be a dangerous precedent to set because the suggestion is that society should get rid of anyone based on their unwillingness to follow group expectations.

These death penalty pros and cons I’m not intended to serve as a moral framework for what everyone should believe. There are legitimate reasons why capital punishment is a useful tool within societies. There are also specific outcomes that happen when the death penalty gets taken off the table, which benefits everyone too. That is why these critical points must continue to be discussed so that we all can come to the best possible decision as we keep one another safe.

Deforestation is defined as the widespread clearing of trees from a specific parcel of land. The purpose of this process is to create an area of space that can be used for purposes other than forest management. Most deforestation actions occur in tropical rainforests as a way to prepare large swaths of land for farming, plantations, or agricultural pastures.

Although farming is a common cause for deforestation that is often discussed, there are multiple reasons why these actions are taken. Resource extraction, logging, and mining activities all create cash opportunities that the land cannot provide when it is covered with trees. Even though we know the dangers of removing trees from the environment, deforestation activities continue to escalate in the patterns that were first established in the 1960s.

The United Nations estimates that over 18,000,000 acres of forest are lost each year due to these activities. Since 2010, countries like Afghanistan have lost over 70% of their forests due to development efforts.

These are the significant deforestation pros and cons to review.

List of the Pros of Deforestation

1. Deforestation creates more usable land for agricultural activities.
Although recent human population estimates for the year 2050 have been revised downward to about 9 billion people, that means we still must have enough crops grown to feed each person. We must have access to fresh water resources that support human population levels to this extent. One of the ways that we can do that is through the creation of more usable agricultural space.

Removing a forest should never be the first option. The advantage that it gives us is access to the space we need to create the food resources that will support us in the future. If we plant more trees to compensate for the ones that must be harvested to create the space, then we can offset many of the disadvantages that come through this practice.

2. Deforestation creates income-earning opportunities.
There are numerous materials harvested from forests that earn an income for the workers and countries involved. Logging gives us access to timber which is used to build structures. We can work on mineral extraction, oil and gas, and mining activities that generate ongoing income options. When the costs of removing the timber are compared to the profits that can be earned from the resources found in that area, deforestation becomes an economically profitable venture when it is appropriately managed.

3. Deforestation is a job creator.
There are few employment opportunities found in the countries where deforestation takes place most often. Most workers in these regions are trained in agricultural work only. Clearing forests is a way to create logging jobs. The mining opportunities found in the spaces create high wage positions which would not exist otherwise. Even transforming the land into something that produces agricultural products creates more employment options for the region. This process generates an income for families that may not earn anything otherwise.

4. Deforestation gives us the products that we need.
We must sacrifice a lot if we reverse our emphasis on deforestation. Wood pulp that is used to create paper comes from timber taken from these activities at times. We build furniture based on the logging work what happens in the modern forest. Items like rubber, Carnauba wax, and aspirin all have ingredients which are sourced from the rain forest. A better solution would be to utilize responsible harvesting practices instead of attempting to clear cut trees when trying to create new economic opportunities.

5. Deforestation creates tax revenues.
The income generation opportunities provided through deforestation activities do not stop wants the land is cleared. Farming generates crops which can lead to higher levels of taxation on property and products. Mining and oil production work generates revenue that the government can use in other ways too. In the countries were deforestation occurs most often, numerous social programs are funded by work that falls into this category.

6. Deforestation can stop urban overcrowding issues.
Urban sprawl frequently occurs in the countries which feature deforestation activities. By creating new space that is usable for various needs, new communities can begin forming in areas that were once classified as being unusable. This structure makes it possible to reduce the urban population levels by creating new land ownership opportunities which would not exist otherwise. These actions create new chances for economic output, while also reducing the effects of urbanization which also create negative impacts.

List of the Cons of Deforestation

1. Deforestation creates a lack of cultural and biological diversity.
The loss of diversity on our planet is a devastating experience. Many of the scientific discoveries that occurred today are because of research that was based in forests. We can even trace humanities tribal past through the study of ancient rainforests. When we get rid of diversity, that gives rise to a higher risk of mutations forming within plant, animal, and human genomes. More than a dozen genetic mutations and humans are associated directly with incestual activities. When these issues occur, they tend to stick around for centuries, which impacts future generations in unknown ways.

2. Deforestation is not necessary to create additional agricultural space.
The nation of Brazil achieved a 75% reduction in their deforestation activities in 2015. The government then received $1 billion in funding from a project which works to preserve forest lands around the world. We can work together to find alternative solutions for our agricultural leads when we’re willing to explore ideas that are outside the box. Norway supports this activity in Brazil because it helps to offset the omissions they generate from oil production. Imagine how we could support additional tree grows by utilizing spaces that receive little attention right now.

3. Deforestation can encourage violence.
The history of reclaiming land from the rainforest in Brazil is one that is extremely violent. Ranchers would hire mercenaries to remove local tribes, trespassers, or anyone who might threaten their deforestation activities. Some tribes of been so devastated by these activities that they are down to just a handful of members. Even when the government tries to protect these groups, the people who want the land for their own purposes use their resources to counter those protective measures. There is a very real threat of genocide with these activities is outside interventions are not possible.

4. Deforestation disrupts human cultures.
Our tribalism may have evolved to be based on borders instead of forests, but it still exists. If we are unwilling to respect the ancient cultures which have not moved to a modern society, then that speaks more about us then it does of them. We cannot substitute patriotism for meaningful social contact with one another. Some of the tribes that lived in these forests seek no contact with the outside world. There may still be hundreds of isolated tribes living in South America and Oceania which reflects the history of humanity’s culture.

When we make contact with these people, we destroyed them. It only takes one year for an isolated tried to lose 50% of the remaining members because of the consequences of outside contacts.

5. Deforestation takes advantage of a dwindling resource.
The process of deforestation can only last for so long. We only have a specific number of trees on our planet at any given time. If we continue to cut them down for other purposes, then eventually they will all disappear. At the current rate of deforestation in South America, the Amazon rainforest could be completely gone by the year 2060. An escalation of harvesting activities could make this deadline even sooner. Since only 1% of life on our planet that is believed to live in these environments has ever been studied, we would lose out on numerous potential scientific advances if this outcome we’re allowed to be achieved.

6. Deforestation encourages flooding and erosion.
Trees offer stability to the soil. Without their presence, it would not be able to absorb water in the same way it does today. Poor drainage occurs when the land is overworked. This outcome creates higher levels of flooding and erosion because there is nothing left to stop the movement of the water. Then the extra water moves into streams and rivers, which causes downstream flooding for communities hundreds of miles away from where the deforestation activities are taking place.

7. Deforestation offers limited profit opportunities.
The act of deforestation creates limited profits for those who are participating in these activities. The removal of trees creates a tangible cost that limits the economic impact our global society needs. According to information published by the BBC, up to $5 trillion is lost each year because of our effort to remove forests. The total loss we experience financially is the equivalent to almost the entire GDP from all the countries which are participating in deforestation activities in the first place.

8. Deforestation creates changes in weather patterns.
When there are fewer trees filtering carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, then greenhouse gases can accumulate in harmful ways. Drought caused by human activities creates a global impact which limits life on our planet in numerous ways. It limits our ability to grow crops, access water supplies, and meet the basic needs that we have every day. This pollution creates so much harm that over 200,000 people each year just in the United States die because of its influence. We must understand that the frequency and severity of these climate changes are directly tied to tree removal.

9. Deforestation does not create usable agricultural space in every circumstance.
Although deforestation creates more open space, that isn’t a guarantee that people have access to usable land. The issue with this word is that most tropical soils are old and weathered. Their nutrient profile does not support crop grows without artificial intervention. Dense vegetation areas, like you would find in a rainforest, increase the acidity level of the soil as well. There are toxic levels of aluminum and iron found in cleared lands. Once you add in the repair costs to alleviate these issues, the financial benefits of clearing the trees might not outweigh the disadvantages that occur when there is less biological diversity.

10. Deforestation prevents ongoing research.
Recent research suggests that up to 70% of the plant life found in rainforests offer the potential of cancer treatment properties. We currently use over 200 plants for the medicines we take today because of the work that was done in the rainforests in previous generations. Not only would we be stopping future medical advancements with our deforestation activities, but we are also eliminating current treatment options for people who are sick.

Vista for station pros and cons make it pretty clear that we cannot continue with the status quo. We must be responsible with our forestry management from here on out. If we are not, then our children and grandchildren will pay the price for our inactivity. We may only have five decades left to fix this problem. That means we must all get started on it today.

The structure of a democracy allows eligible residents of a community to have a voice in the decisions that must be made for everyone. It is a governmental system which can be applied at local, county, state, or national levels. The United States follows this type of format, even though the structure of its government is technically a republic.

What is unique about the structure of a democracy is that the distinctive population districts all receive representation within the government. Each person is given the opportunity to share their opinion about how things should be run. Some democracies allow this voice to be heard directly, while others use a form of representation to give groups of people a say in what happens.

This structure makes it possible for everyone to be as active or inactive as they want to be when there are political decisions to be made.

Although a democracy offers higher levels of freedom to the average person, it is not free from disadvantages. It takes time to govern when this governmental structure is in place. There may be decisions that must be made immediately within this structure that do not receive an optimal outcome because of the speed issue.

These are the significant democracy pros and cons to review when comparing this form of government to other structures.

List of the Pros of Democracy

1. Democracies do an excellent job of stopping exploitation.
All government structures are susceptible to exploitation because of the individuals who are elected to powerful positions. The difference in this government structure is that the powers are divided more evenly within it. Checks and balances exist to ensure that no single individual receives absolute power over the governing process. This structure prevents politicians from explaining the general population. It requires them to represent the needs of everyone instead of pursuing their own need to obtain power.

2. Democracies encourage higher levels of economic growth.
The freedom offered within the structures of a democracy give the general population an opportunity to pursue any outcome they desire. Although legal limitations exist to prevent one person from harming another, this government type offers the freedom to look at different jobs, educational opportunities, or even living arrangements. You are given a chance to pursue what you are passionate about in life. This process makes it possible for people to stay more productive because they are always engaging with their strengths. That is why the GDP of a country which focuses on democratic structures is typically higher.

3. Democracies offer people consistency.
There is more consistency in the governing process with a democracy because the general population is given the right to vote on decisions. This structure can take different forms, but the outcome is generally the same. Each person is given an opportunity to express their opinion at their polling stations by casting a ballot. That process allows each community to either continue pursuing specific outcomes that they feel are beneficial, or they have an opportunity to switch directions and try something new.

The structure of a democracy makes it possible for each population group to come together in a way that shapes society to be beneficial for almost everyone.

4. Democracies inspire patriotism and loyalty.
The structure of a democracy is unique because it allows the general population to stand up and fight for the things that they believe in every day. Every unique perspective and opinion can be shared and safe environments because of the protections permitted in this government type. Instead of having the government direct what people should say, three, or do, everyone is given a chance to be celebrated from what they are able to contribute. This process helps people form relationships with their communities, which is how patriotism and loyalty initially form.

5. Democracies do not centralize power base.
The purpose of democracy is not to have enough power over the general population to dictate how each person decides to live their life. It prefers to place that decision in the hands of each individual. Each voter gets to have a say in the outcomes that happen every day. When elected officials are not doing their jobs properly, each community can come together with their voting power to make the necessary changes that will restore what they desire.

Every vote cast within a democracy is its own source of power. This structure is what makes it possible for each person to stay in control over the direction of their life without relying on the government to dictate what they should do.

6. Democracies promote higher levels of equality across all socioeconomic demographics.
A real democracy gives every vote the same value. If you are a person, then you have the ability to shape your destiny under this government structure. It doesn’t matter if you’re a man, a woman, or identify your gender in a different way. You can come from a wealthy family, or you could struggle in poverty. It doesn’t matter what religion you prefer, what city you call your home, or if you decide to be a nice person. Your vote always has the same value. That is why democracies tend to be the dominant structure of government used in the world today.

7. Democracies encourage personal involvement with the governing process.
Each person controls their own fate within the structure of a democracy. Although their boats may sometimes be in the minority, the chance to express an opinion on any matter makes it possible to direct the governing process at any time. You get to choose whether or not you cast a ballot in an election. It is up to you to decide which policies to support and which ones you should avoid. These freedoms are not always available in the other structures of government which are used in the world today. Your personal involvement (or lack thereof) makes it possible to shape your life in the way you prefer.

8. Democracies are less likely to conduct warfare.
Although the United States is approaching its 20-year anniversary of involvement in Afghanistan, democratic systems are less likely to go to war compared to other forms of government. Warfare requires the will of the people in a majority support such actions. Other forms of government can decide to pursue conflict based on the ideas or whims of a single leader in charge of the nation. This advantage also makes it less likely for society to experience violent rebellion, writing, or coup attempts.

9. Democracies ensure a smooth transition of power.
There is a certain amount of open that’s what you can find in a democracy that cannot be found in other government structures. When governments or leaders change, the checks and balances offered by this format make it possible to achieve smooth transitions. There are no arguments about who becomes the rightful successor for any position within the government. That is because each position is either elected by the people or play that by someone who won an election in the first place.

10. Democracies establish legitimacy.
The democratic system creates a fair structure of government because voters select who will be in charge. That process requires each candidate to argue before their voters about why they are the best person to be a leader. Winning an election establishes legitimacy for political candidates that other forms of governing cannot provide.

List of the Cons of Democracy

1. Democracies require a lot of time to make progress.
Whether the voting occurs on an individual level or through representation, it takes time to tabulate the information people are providing to the government. There are circumstances when decisions must be made quickly. If a country must seek permission from qualified voters for every circumstance, the process of governing slows down dramatically. It takes longer to get money toward emergency situations, respond to attacks, or even provide social services to the families who need them.

Even when representatives cast votes on behalf of districts, the slower process of governing means they can take one to two years before any meaningful change to active legislation can take place.

2. Democracies cost a lot of money.
It is not unusual for a local election in a small town to exceed six figures in cost by the time every vote is counted. In the United States, every election since the year 2000 has cost more than $1 billion. The 2016 presidential election on its own reach that level. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there is a productivity cost that must be factored into these equations as well. Over $500 million in lost productivity occurs during the November election cycle every two years.

3. Democracies invite mob thinking.
The structure of a democracy relies on the will of the majority to make decisions. Because individuals tend to stay in their comfort zones, people tend to form relationships with others who share their political believes. This thinking creates what is called the “choir effect.” People isolate themselves so that they only hear thoughts or opinions that agree with the own ideas. That makes it easier to discount differing ideas because no one else around them shares the same beliefs.

Polarization occurs because of the structure. Democracies encourage mob thinking because the majority always wins. If you find yourself in the minority, you’re forced to either change your beliefs or settle for what feels like an inferior outcome.

4. Democracies can focus only on the needs of the majority of times.
People who find themselves consistently in the minority when decisions are made can begin to believe that their country is trying to marginalize their position. The needs of the majority often outweigh the preferences of minority populations. This structure makes it possible for those who are in the majority to pass legislation which further limits people who disagree with them. If this process is allowed to continue on without checks and balances, it creates a system where equal rights may no longer be a priority for the entire society.

5. Democracies require intelligent voters.
The structure of a democracy does not work effectively if the votes that are cast on decisions are not based on relevant information. Each ballot must be cast through well-versed opinions to make a positive impact on the society at large. When people vote without knowledge, it creates the potential for harmful legislation, unnecessary services, and other costly problems. Because there is no way to guarantee that every voter will inform themselves about each decision they are being asked to make, the structure of a democracy always contains an element of guesswork.

6. Democracies encourage people to think of themselves before others.
Although there is an advantage in giving everyone a vote in how the government functions within a democracy, the decisions which are made tend to come from a selfish perspective. This government structure panders to the needs of the individual to gather votes more than it does to the needs of the community. People tend to vote based on their own interests instead of what is better for their country as a whole.

7. Democracies can still experience a conflict of interest.
The goal of people who achieve power is to maintain their status for as long as possible. That desire does not go away just because of government is structured as a democracy. Conflicts of interest take place when politicians must decide between their best interests and what the country needs from them. Although there are always people who are willing to set aside this disadvantage to help others, the average politician will look for ways to increase their chances to be reelected for they take a risk to help someone else.

8. Democracies encourage empty promises.
There is no accountability in a democracy when people vote in representatives that cast ballots on their behalf when legislation is debated. Once the individual receives a majority of the vote, they are locked into the office for a specific time unless unusual circumstances apply to the situation. That means it is in the best interest of the politician to make whatever promises are necessary to get the votes needed for them to be elected. Even if they do not keep their word, the only outcome for the average person in that situation is to vote the individual out of office during the next cycle. If that person is a senator in the United States, that’s a six-year wait.

9. Democracies can encourage political gridlock.
The polarization which keeps people from embracing other opinions affects politicians in a democracy too. It is not unusual for the checks and balances found in the structure of government to create unnecessary delays in the implementation of legislation. Even if there isn’t any political deadlock to be found, you will experience endless arguments and tell me what is coalitions that attempt to keep everything together.

These democracy pros and cons for trey a system of governing which promotes personal freedoms, a chance to pursue happiness, and the opportunity to have direct involvement in what happens every day. These benefits often outweigh the costs of democracy, but only when the proper checks and balances are instituted to protect everyone. Because of the unique disadvantages found in the structure, some countries still prefer to look at alternative governing processes to meet their needs.

Deontological ethics is a moral philosophy where the usual ethical definition of right or wrong is based on a series of rules to follow instead of the consequences which occur from such a decision. It is a concept which is based on a person’s obligation or duty to treat others with respect.

Because the definition of morality through deontological ethics focuses on actions instead of outcomes, then a decision to not take action still becomes a moral choice. You’re not focusing on the outcome with this philosophy. The emphasis is placed on the journey that you take in order to get to your destination.

It is a system which works on a foundation of absolutes. There is no room for negotiation with the choice. You will either make an ethically correct decision or one that is not. If that element of “truth” applies to religious circumstances, then the spiritual definition of salvation can depend on your ability to determine how to go through life without harming anyone else well still following divine truths.

The duty-based circumstances found in deontological ethics create distinctive pros and cons to consider when looking at this moral philosophy. Here are the key points to review.

List of the Pros of Deontological Ethics

1. Deontological ethics create a foundation for human conduct.
Different versions of what we would call the “Golden Rule” are found throughout the history of human societies. They can be summed up in this phrase: do you want to others as you would have them do unto you. It was a concept that follows us in our spiritual lives, our professional careers, and even in our relationships that we form.

Deontological ethics require someone to be treating others with respect without receiving it in return to be in a position that is ethically correct. This process applies even to individual thoughts, as you must act in a way where any action would have the capability of becoming a universal law because of its goodness.

2. Deontological ethics create higher levels of personal responsibility.
The processes of deontological ethics requirement individuals to act as if they are the ones who are responsible for creating the expectations and legislation that are followed in society. Any actions taken by each person must be done in such a way that a harmonic effect occurs with every decision. Any outcome which created this harmony would not be ethically correct in the structure, which means it would become the responsibility of the individual to avoid such actions at any cost.

3. Deontological ethics create moral absolutes.
The structure of deontological ethics is black-and-white. There are never any gray areas as to what is right or what is wrong with me and society. No exceptions to any moral rules are permitted within this concept. Even if situations arise to extreme or unforeseen levels, these guidelines do not allow for another course of action. The outcome of this theory would be that every person within the society could aspire to be morally perfect because there is always an understanding of what would be expected of them from an ethical standpoint.

4. Deontological ethics emphasize the value of every person.
Duty-based systems focus on providing equal respect to all human beings, no matter where they are from or what they might choose to do. This set of ethics provides a foundation for all human rights. It forces each of us to offer due regard to the given interests of each person even if those ideas are at odds with the needs of a larger group. Although some versions of this theory suggest that some acts are always wrong, the outcome is dictated by the governing perception of “rightness.”

5. Deontological ethics provide certainty.
If someone bases their morality from the consequences of the decision, then there is uncertainty until that information develops. That means every choice someone makes offers the potential of being right or wrong until the outcomes become apparent. Deontological ethics take a different approach. This moral theory offers certainty because it stays concerned with the action itself.

The action is correct and right, then an individual should do it. If it is wrong, then they should not. All those things or not this clear cut in real life, we do understand that certain actions have a high probability of bringing specific results. We then choose those actions because we want those results. Deontological ethics ask us to look at the situation from the other direction.

List of the Cons of Deontological Ethics

1. Deontological ethics create a paradox.
There are times when the maximum welfare of a society is forbidden when following deontological ethics. This structure tasks an individual with saving lives, but you cannot do this at the expense of your own life. No act of self-sacrifice is ever listed as being a morally correct decision what is this idea. You could not harm another person, even if you knew it would save thousands of lives if you did. At the same time, allowing people to die because you failed to take action is also not permitted.

Imagine you walk into a building, and there is an active shooter situation. Now let’s say that you have a gun, and you are trained to use it correctly. It doesn’t matter what the shooter is doing in that building. Deontological ethics dictate how you react to the situation. You would not be able to shoot the person to stop down because it would cause them harm. It would not be permissible to let others die either. You would need to find a third solution to stay ethically correct.

2. Deontological ethics become useful as supernatural excuses.
Deontological ethics involved more than the human experience. They also include supernatural events. Divine commands create moral commandments within this structure. If society believes that God (and whatever name someone chooses to call him or her) dictates moral commands to them, then it is their ethical duty to follow them in every circumstance. That is why some people choose to harm others in the name of their spiritual deity. Their deontological ethics from a supernatural source override the morality that they have on a personal level.

3. Deontological ethics are a matter of subjective opinion.
How do you define right and wrong from my deontological perspective depends on the skills and insights of the individuals involved in the situation. Let’s go back to that active shooter situation. If someone were to yell in the building that everyone should get out to protect themselves, they would be in a position of ethical correctness compared to someone who pulled a weapon and ended the situation once and for all.

Even the act of pushing someone through a door to help them leave is morally inferior with deontological ethics then yelling about a dangerous situation.

4. Deontological ethics do not incorporate self-defense ideas.
Deontological ethics dictate that all forms of violence are wrong. There are no justifiable actions which allow you to encourage or participate in the harm of another person, even if that individual is trying to hurt you at that time. You are never permitted to respond in kind if someone commits an act of violence against you.

The only permitted action you can take when following this philosophy would be to find a means of escape. Even as you are leaving the situation, to stay in a position of moral correctness, you would not be permitted to allow anyone else to experience harm either. There are no exceptions. You cannot hurt yourself, and you cannot permit others to be hurt, no matter what might be happening.

5. Deontological ethics are based on the actions that we take.
Let’s revisit the active shooter example one more time. You walk into the building. Then you lie to the shooter, telling that person the police are about to arrive. That action is not permitted because the statement you make is false. The argument that deontological ethics makes is that the ethics of any situation are based on the actions a person decides to take. The better choice in any situation that is questionable from a moral standpoint would be to do nothing because then there would be no action to judge your morality from at that point.

6. Deontological ethics suggest that you should always do the right thing, no matter what.
The moral philosophy behind deontological ethics suggests that each person has a duty to always do the right thing. Your focus must be on the actions taken instead of the results achieved. You will always be in a morally correct position, even if the results you produce are poor, because of the desire to pursue a duty which follows the universal rules of morality. You first consider what actions are correct, and then you proceed from there.

7. Deontological ethics are absolutist.
This moral philosophy follows an absolute set of rules. The only way that an individual can deal with situations that don’t seem to fit the mold is to build in a list of exceptions to the rules. Then you encounter the paradox once again. You’re not permitted to take actions that could harm someone else, including yourself, which is what an exceptions list would do to you. That is why the constant answer with deontological ethics is to avoid a situation if there isn’t a clear course of action that someone should take.

These deontological ethics pros and cons look at theoretical concepts if they were applied in real life today. The reality of this philosophical idea is flawed because truth is not universal. How one person expresses love can be very different when compared to other expressions. What works for one person may not work for someone else. That is why our personal focus must come back to the Golden Rule. If we treat others in a way that we would want to be treated, then the world would start to become a better place to live.

Designer babies are newborns who have their genetic makeup pre-selected during the fetal development stage of life. The goal of this process is to eradicate specific defects which are present in the child’s genome. This process could also be useful in the improvement of specific genes, to ensure that they are present, or make additional changes to the building framework of the child to create specific results.

Although this is a process which was only in the worlds of science fiction before, in November 2018, a Chinese researcher claimed that he helped to make the world’s first babies with genetic editing. He Jiankui of Shenzhen stated that his work altered the embryos of seven couples during their fertility treatments. One pregnancy resulted from the work, which was intended to resist the possibility of a future infection with HIV.

Designer babies are outlawed in the United States and most of the world because of the risks involved to future generations. DNA changes created through this process could stay around for several generations or risk harming other genes.

The ethics of this process are up for debate now more than ever with this announcement, so here are the designer babies’ pros and cons to review.

List of the Pros of Designer Babies

1. It is a new way to battle diseases that are challenging and deadly.
Many of the worst diseases that humanity faces, such as cancer, are highly resistant to our current approach to treatment. Genetic editing provides a new avenue where future generations may be naturally immune to their impact. This development process could reduce human mutations and place an end to suffering. Cancer therapeutics involving genetic editing have already found to be useful using CRISPR to locate and kill offending cells.

2. It could extend the lifespan of humans.
We are already living longer as a species than ever before thanks to numerous advances in medical science. The processes of genetic editing, such as through the creation of designer babies, could help to push that time out even further. We face numerous diseases and illnesses that can take life prematurely. This science would help us find ways to reverse some of the most common reasons for cellular declines due to this issue. It is a chance to improve the quality and quantity of life as we know it.

3. It offers hope to families who might normally not be able to have children.
The current rate of birth defects in the United States is 1 in every 33 births. That number is even higher outside of the developed/industrialized world. We already use extensive genetic screening tests and processes to determine which couples are at risk of experiencing this situation. Birth defects continue to be the leading cause of newborn deaths, resulting in 20% of fatalities. The processes involved with genetic editing are not necessarily about choosing the eye or hair color of a child. It could be a way to repair these issues while a child is still in the fetal stage to give them a fighting chance at life.

4. It could be a way to treat genetic disordered in the general population.
Although 90% of human populations are born without the need to deal with a rare disease or genetic disorder, that still leaves 1 person out of 10 affected by a condition which can impact the quality of their life in some way. That means over 30 million people are potentially affected by a genetic disorder that the processes behind designer babies could prevent. There are more than 7,000 different diseases that we have identified so far that fit into this category, with over 80% of them having a potential cause in genetics. Early intervention could replace faulty cells or insert missing ones to provide a potential cure.

5. It may lead to new advancements in other areas of medical science.
Researchers using the CRISPR therapy method have found that it is possible to apply gene editing techniques outside of the womb with potential success. Alterations to the fertility of mice have already been successful, as have several new treatment options for some of today’s most serious diseases. Although the ethical elements of creating designer babies might make some people cringe, the willing treatment on the living through this process doesn’t hold the same implications.

6. It is a process that could lead to new advances in other scientific fields.
The development of designer babies would create new avenues of study for scientists in other areas that go beyond human health and wellness. These techniques could be used to help improve the health of plants and animals as well. It would become possible to create food resources which improve health by reinforcing the wellness of each structure. It would be a field where there would be multiple opportunities to support life in all of its forms.

7. It may speed up the pharmaceutical discovery process.
The use of CRISPR, along with other gene editing techniques associated with the creation of designer babies, offers the potential of speeding up the drug discovery process in other medical fields. It is a technology option which is surprisingly affordable considering its age, offers high levels of precision, and is relatively simple to use. Some manufacturers are already using this option in their research and development phase of product development. We may see more new drugs that work faster and better than ever before because of the science that exists behind this action.

8. It allows parents to set their own limits on the work being completed.
The discussions which involve designer babies often describe a “Wild West” type of medical situation where doctors are doing all of this genetic manipulation work without thinking of the consequences of their activities. The reality of this field of medicine would be that the parents of the child would be in control of each step and process. They would decide how far the work would go – or if it was even necessary in the first place. Until something changes, the government does not control the means of reproduction that people use.

9. It would give parents a chance to give their child something new.
The processes of genetic editing offer parents an opportunity to give their children something that they never had. It is a way to restore genetics, eliminate mitochondrial disorders, and accomplish additional benefits for future generations that were not possible before. We already find it acceptable for women to take higher levels of folate during a pregnancy to reduce the risks of autism and other developmental disorders. This scientific process would become another way to ensure that infants have a healthy start to life.

10. It could offer us a way to create more organ matches.
According to information published by UNOS, there is someone new added to the national transplant waiting list in the United States for an organ. About 20 people die every day on average while waiting for their transplant. Over 100,000 people are currently waiting on a kidney, followed by 14,000 for a liver, and then about 4,000 for a heart. The creation of designer babies could help us create a similar genetic profile in humanity that would make it easier to find matches should something go wrong with a person’s health.

If therapeutic cloning and genetic manipulation worked together, it could be possible to create organs that were an exact match to an individual, further reducing the chances of a rejection after a transplant procedure.

11. It would allow the gender of the child to be chosen.
Parents would be able to choose the gender of their child, along with specific favorable characteristics, when going through the process of creation for a designer baby. Although these issues might seem unethical to some, a family with three boys might want to have a girl – or vice-versa. This process would help to make that outcome a reality without relying on the gamble of natural genetics.

12. It could reduce issues with societal discrimination.
There are many challenging choices that families face when their child is born with a disability. Not only is there the concern about offering a lifetime of care, but there is also the worry about who will care for their children after they are gone. The scientific processes which can create designer babies would also make it possible to reduce the impact of discrimination in society, make it possible to provide better assistance, and create better outcomes for the average person.

13. It could reduce bullying.
Kids often become bullies because they lack confidence in their own life in some way. The process of creating designer babies would create a shift in this dynamic because it would allow each child to maximize their benefits. Although there would likely still be differences in intelligence, athletic ability, and other preferences, kids would also have the self-confidence in knowing that their abilities were enhanced to reinforce their own self-esteem.

List of the Cons of Designer Babies

1. It offers safety concerns which we cannot ignore.
Before we even address the ethics of creating designer babies, there is a safety factor which we must first address. When slight changes are made to the genetics of an individual, then there is an increased chance that unexpected results may occur. The efforts to create a child which is resilient to HIV infections could introduce new and even more dangerous diseases into the human race. There are concerns that genetic editing in the womb could lead to premature birth, stillbirth, or natural abortion as well – all of which are unthinkable results for the parents involved.

2. It creates an ethical dilemma for some individuals.
There are two ethical segments to consider here: one involves science, while the other involves faith, religion, or spirituality. Some would say that modifying human genomes to fit a specific profile (for any purpose) is unnatural. There is an approach in this disadvantage which would go as far as to say that tinkering with designer babies places humanity in the role of playing God. Even though this process could reduce or eliminate disease on our planet, there is a natural component that exists of a person falling ill and experiencing a premature death.

3. It would reduce the diversity of humanity.
This concern offers the potential of outweighing all of the other ones. When we begin to change the genetic profile of individuals before they are born, then we are setting the stage to limit the amount of genetic diversity that is available to us. The impact would be similar to what we would experience if human cloning were practiced during the stage of life potentiality as well. When there is a lack of diversity within human populations, the rate of disease and mutation increase exponentially.

We can already see this amongst the Ashkenazi Jewish population, where specific genetic disorders are more common than in the general population. Gaucher disease, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, familial dysautonomia, and spinal muscular atrophy are all high-risk elements brought about by a lack of diversity. Although genetic editing could theoretically help to treat these issues, it may create new ones in the future to worry about as well.

4. It could enhance the socioeconomic differences in society.
Genetic editing, just like any other medical tool, would be widely available in the population centers who could afford this work. Even if the processes are refined in such a way that it becomes possible to purchase these services without being wealthy, the majority of the world would still not be able to take advantage of this process. If you earn more than $32,400 per year, then you are in the global 1% of top income earners. You’d need to earn more than $420,000 per year to reach that level in just the United States.

5. It might only provide temporary relief from our health concerns.
If there is one thing that Mother Nature knows how to do well, it is to adapt to changing circumstances. We’ve only had effective antibiotics to treat infections for about a century, yet that has been enough time for some organisms to create a resistance against this treatment method. We might experience something similar when creating designer babies as well. The future of genetic manipulation does look promising on some levels, but it must be pointed out that antibiotics were once seen as the future answer to medical issues as well.

6. It could create a new social class of humans.
Not only is there a risk that designer babies would become available to only the wealthy, but it also carries a concern about how these “new” children would be perceived. Their genetic manipulation could make them stand apart from the rest of their peers. It could lead to the need to create specific standards of intelligence, sociability, creativity, or other wanted outcomes at birth. There is a very real possibility that the countries with the most access to this technology would continue to pull away in their standard of living compared to that of the developing world.

7. It offers no guarantee of future success.
Although we will not know the outcome of the gene editing work performed in China in 2018 for some time, it is possible to look at the data coming out of the research studies which are focused on genetic therapies. We have discovered that most treatments like these offer high levels of potential on paper, but it is not something that produces results in real-life situations. Most people who receive these treatments revert back to their previous state as soon as the therapy concludes. There is a real chance that designer babies would do the same thing.

8. It is a process which could encourage genetic doping.
If we get to a place where designer babies become an acceptable societal standard, then the existing population would potentially look for ways to help them reach the same levels of success as the first generation of genetically altered humans. This theoretic state is referred to as “genetic doping.” It would involve an individual undergoing gene modification procedures without a medical need to do so. This action could create more harm than good, and even expose humanity to a new set of unexpected diseases or outcomes.

9. It does not offer a guarantee of success.
The first clinical trials of genetic therapies occurred in the early 1990s. Although there was the occasional story of success from these efforts, there were also severe outcomes to consider as well. Treatments in France to cure boys diagnosed with X-linked SCID resulted in 40% of the children developing leukemia through the efforts. Similar stories follow other testing efforts into this field. That’s why we cannot look at designer babies through our current scientific lens without taking into account that we could be trading one condition for another.

10. It could be turned into a genetic bioweapon.
One of the biggest concerns that the creation of designer babies brings to our world is the information that would exist because of it. Individual genetic profiles could be stored in databases containing every relevant data point about the people created through this process. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper listed genome editing as one of six potential threats for a weapon of mass destruction for this very reason. Imagine a weapon that could target the specific genetics of an individual, a family, or an ethnicity. We’ve already experienced the horrors of the Holocaust and issues with genocide. Do we need to worry about this issue too?

11. It could be a violation of the rights of the child.
If parents decide that creating a designer baby is what they want to do, then they are making core changes to the genetic makeup of that child without any choice to the outcome. This process creates a shift in the human potentiality of life in ways that might not be beneficial. There is the possibility that shifts in the emotional or mental health of the child could occur when attempting to address physical needs as well. Although there could be benefits in the ability of this science to reduce severe defects, the outcome does make it seem to some like the child is more of an experiment than a newborn.

12. It could harm the mother.
Making changes to the genetic profile of a child during the fetal stages creates a risk for the mother to consider. Even if the work is done outside of the womb before implantation, there is no way to predict how a shift in genetics would be treated by the mother’s immune system. It could create an outcome where the child is attacked by white blood cells, creating a response that could put her life in danger as well. Even if the outcome is a spontaneous abortion, there are complications that include fevers, hormonal problems, and thyroid disease which could develop in time.

13. It might change how the child grows.
When we add or subtract to the human genome to create a specific outcome, we are making a change in how that child will develop over time. This novel technology could take us into a new frontier of medicine that has people living well into their 100s. It might also be the first step toward eventual self-destruction. We cannot reverse this issue once the work is completed, so changing how a child grows will impact them over their entire lifetime.

These designer babies pros and cons indicate that we still have a long ways to go from a scientific viewpoint before this process will be accepted by human societies. China announced in January 2019 that they would be tightening the regulations of genetic engineering, which would impact the CRISPR technique as well. There may still be a future with this technology and technique to consider, but for now, the idea of tinkering with a person’s genetics is still frowned upon.

You can find diesel engines in almost every vehicle type today thanks to advancements in this technology. Europe offers numerous cars that come equipped with this option, although the U.S. still has a majority of its vehicles using diesel as semis, pickups, and other large vehicles.

Almost half of all the vehicles sold in Europe are diesel, whereas about 3% of what is on the roads in the United States are equipped with the same technology.

There was a time when diesel vehicles where not popular in America because of their noise and smell. One of the traditions in past generations was to cruise downtown streets on a warm evening to spend time with family and friends. If you were going to smell like diesel exhaust, then no one wanted to hang out with you!

New technologies in the world of diesel engines have reduce the noise and smell concerns that most people have with this technology. Fuel emissions improvements are making this a viable option for commuters. If you’re thinking about purchasing one right now, then here are the pros and cons of diesel cars to consider today.

List of the Pros of Diesel Cars

1. Diesel cars offer a lot of power for towing.
Diesel engines are the workhorses of the automobile industry. If you have something that needs to be pulled, then this is the car that you will want to own. Cars equipped with a 4-cylinder diesel engine offer the same towing capacity as a vehicle with a comparable 6-cylinder unleaded engine. Although you’ll have a lower maximum speed on the highway when you choose this option, the power that you receive in return more than makes up for this potential disadvantage.

2. They are cold weather champions for starting.
The technology behind the older diesel cars made it a headache to get the engine started during the cold months of the year. Those glow plugs needed to get warm enough to create the right amount of heat for the thing to turnover correctly for you. It could take minutes to make that happen if temperatures were below zero. On the modern vehicles equipped with this technology, the pre-heater will help your car start immediately, even during bouts of extreme weather, so you’ll receive the same performance as you would with a standard gasoline engine.

3. You can operate diesel cars on biofuels.
All new vehicles today can operate on some type of biofuel. Even gasoline engines can operate on ethanol with only a minor reduction in their fuel economy. Diesels offer a distinctive advantage here. They can run on a diesel biofuel mixture of up to 20% (and sometimes more) without voiding the manufacturer’s warranty on the product. In the United States, unless you own an E85 vehicle, the maximum biofuel level you can run with gasoline is around 15%.

4. Diesel cars cost less to operate and maintain over their lifetime.
Did you know that the average cost to maintain a diesel vehicle over its lifetime is up to $7,000 less than it is for a car equipped with a gasoline engine of comparable quality? Although you will pay more for a diesel engine when you purchase your preferred make and model, the savings that you receive over the long-term will make up the difference and then some. Even in just three years of ownership, you can save up to $2,000 on the costs associated with regular checkups and maintenance.

5. You receive a better torque profile with a diesel engine.
The difference between one gallon of diesel fuel and a similar amount of unleaded fuel is 22,000 BTUs. That extra energy goes right into the pulling power that you receive in torque for your diesel car. Dodge proved how impressive this advantage can be by operating one of their Dakota pickups out at the Bonneville Salt Flats drag strip. Operators got the pickup to reach 220mph, generating 1,300 lbs/ft of torque during the run. All diesel cars have an impressive amount of power in the low RPMs to serve your driving needs.

6. The traditional advantage of the diesel engine has been fuel economy.
EPA estimates were not always required on heavy-duty trucks in the past for fuel economy, so comparing gas mileage rates between diesel and gasoline engines is not always possible. When you take the average results from all diesels compared to other engines, then you will see a 30% improvement in what you receive on the miles per gallon rating. If you are constantly driving under slow-speed conditions, then that figure can rise to as high as 50%. Although the trends are a little different in recent years, the historic price of diesel is usually lower than traditional gas as well.

Although you will pay about $0.25 on average more for diesel today, the gains in mileage make the cost difference a wash for most drivers. Some will still save money.

7. Diesel cars offer a higher level of durability.
If you look at the number of vehicles which have reached the 1 million mile club, then you will see an ongoing trend. Almost all of the models that reached this milestone were equipped with a diesel engine. There is another element to consider here as well. Outside of the regular replacements of belts, hoses, filters, and changing the oil, the drivers of the vehicles which made it this far all drove them with the attitude that they were built to last.

Why do diesel engines offer this higher level of durability? It has to do with their engine speed, which is 50% lower than the typical gasoline internal combustion engine. The lower RPMs that are generated by this technology create less wear-and-tear on the engine components, which allows the vehicle to keep driving strong.

8. There are fewer parts to worry about with diesel cars.
Another one of the advantages that come with a diesel car when compared to their gasoline counterparts is the lack of a distributor or a spark plug. You won’t be taking your vehicle to mechanic for a standard tune-up once you reach a certain mileage point. There are still the typical service needs that any vehicle goes through, but it offers fewer stops for service over a longer time period. That’s why the maintenance costs are much lower. The only genuine risk of an excessive cost lies with the modern urea injection system.

9. You’re going to receive a longer range on each tank with a diesel car.
There are several diesel cars that are offered for sale today that can travel over 700 miles on a single tank of fuel. They include the Jaguar XF 20d, the Chevy Cruze, and Ford F-150. The new line of pickup trucks offered by Ford in their best-selling series are rated to go 850 miles on a single tank. If you hate making a stop at the fuel station, then these are the vehicles that you’ll want to consider purchasing today. Not even some hybrids offer this range, even though they cost up to $4,000 more than a diesel car.

10. Then you have the fuel economy to consider with diesel cars.
Diesel cars do more than drive for a long time without requiring you to fill up. They can also do it without having you purchase a lot of fuel to make that happen. Most car models that come equipped with this technology will achieve at least 40 miles per gallon, with a handful of 2018 models topping out above 50mpg. Most trucks can achieve at least 25 miles per gallon, with some SUVs going above 30mpg on the highway.

List of the Cons of Diesel Cars

1. You are going to sacrifice horsepower for torque with a diesel engine.
If your primary focus is on speed with the vehicle that you want to own, then a diesel car is not your best option. You’re going to receive strength with this vehicle instead. Although the differences are minimal when comparing entry-level models, there is about a 10% shakeup in the larger vehicles. You’ll still get plenty of acceleration and speed, but it won’t top out at the same levels on the highway when you’re traveling over a long distance.

2. Diesel cars still deal with some noise issues.
The difference between a diesel and a gasoline engine involves where the noise funnels out of the vehicle. Most cars have a muffler at the end of their exhaust system because this reduces the sound pollution the vehicle makes. Diesels generate their noise in the front, which means the front cab must receive an extra layer of insulation to protect the ears. This disadvantage is slowly equalizing as time passes by, but it is still something to consider if your hearing is somewhat sensitive.

3. The fuel for diesel cars is still more expensive around the world.
The current gap for diesel fuel and standard gasoline in the United States is $0.40 per gallon, assuming that you purchase an 87-octane product. Diesel fuels are rated with a cetane number instead, which is usually somewhere between 40-60 at the pump. If you were to purchase gasoline with the highest octane rating for your vehicle, you might receive a cetane number in the 20 range. When you compare the cost in terms of actual fuel use, this disadvantage is minimal for most drivers.

4. Diesel cars can see steep decreases in their fuel economy during city driving.
Although diesel engines perform extremely well during slow speed driving, that figure results from continuous forward motion. The start-and-stop driving that occurs in the city can cause the fuel economy rating by over 25% for some makes and models. Some gasoline engines see a similar reduction, but it isn’t usually as severe as what you would find when you’re behind the wheel of a diesel.

5. There is the cost element to consider with diesel engines.
If you’re going to purchase a diesel car over one equipped with an internal combustion engine, then expect to pay about $2,000 more for the privilege. On larger vehicles or premium brands, you can figure between 5% to 10% of the MSRP of the vehicle is the required upgrade price to take advantage of this technology. That’s a lot cheaper than 100% electric vehicles or hybrids, but it won’t meet the needs of a tight budget like a standard gasoline vehicle can.

6. The availability of diesel fuel is uncertain in the United States.
Although the levels of accessibility for diesel fuel are increasing in the United States, there’s still a 50/50 chance that you won’t find it available at the average gas station. There is more availability for this fuel compared to E85 or electric vehicle chargers, but it can still be a challenge in some areas to find a spot to refuel. Some communities might only have one station that can accommodate your needs.

These pros and cons of diesel cars prove that long-distance drivers can often benefit from this technology. You will see noticeable improvements for slow-speed driving needs as well. Although it may not be the best option for city driving, most drivers will discover that the disadvantages of the diesel engines spoken about in previous generations is more of a myth today.

The purest form of democracy is called a “direct democracy.” This structure of government requires the direct participation of all citizens in the decision-making processes of the government. It is a method of governing that stands in contrast to what an indirect democracy offers through the use of elected representatives to make these decisions on behalf of the people.

It is even different than the structure of a semi-direct democracy, which would permit representatives to administer daily governance, while allowing the citizens to issue referendums, initiatives, and recalls. There are currently 30 countries in the world today, as of 2019, which permit referendums to be initiated by the population at the national level.

This form of government is extremely rare because of the time and cost issues involved. It currently exists in just two cantons of Switzerland: Glarus and Appenzell Innerrhoden.

These are the direct democracy pros and cons to consider when looking at this particular government structure.

List of the Pros of a Direct Democracy

1. Everyone must participate for it to be a successful venture.
A direct democracy cannot work unless everyone who lives within the defined borders of the government participates in the processes involved. Each person is given the full right of participation unless specific exclusionary rules apply. That means you would have the right to share your opinion, vote on all matters, and even help to introduce new laws for consideration. Although you have the right to not vote as well, a majority outcome will still cause governing results.

2. It offers one of the most transparent forms of government created.
Because the people hold the power in a direct democracy, then there is no way for governing authorities to withhold information from the general public. Everyone involved must be given all relevant information on the topics under consideration to offer an informed vote on the subject. That leaves little room for doubt or error that indirect democracies sometimes offer. You can’t have “fake news” in this government because it could potentially shift a person’s vote in an unjustifiable way.

3. Direct democracies rely on individual accountability.
Each person that lives in a direct democracy becomes responsible for their portion of the governing process. You would worry about your voting record instead of what an elected official does while in office. There will be times in this governing structure where neighbors will have passionate arguments about what to do, but at the end of the discussion period, the majority vote will always reflect what the will of the people happens to be.

4. Cooperation is essential to the governing process in a direct democracy.
It is impossible to govern in the structure of a direct democracy if there is no cooperation amongst the population. People are invited to come to meetings, discuss issues, and maintain an open mind throughout the entire legislative process. Although this configuration can sometimes lead to peer pressure issues, there is usually higher levels of equality to find in this government option because everyone for all socioeconomic classes has a vote which offers the same value.

5. This government structure requires a disciplined populace.
There is always the possibility that voters could be presented with a resolution that passes because of uninformed voters. Governments which operate on a pure democracy require a populace that is self-disciplined in its approach to knowing current events. People must be able to swallow their pride if a vote doesn’t go their way to continue on with their business. This process eventually creates a society where people feel invested in their lives because they have more control over what is going on.

6. It demands personal responsibility at all times.
You must turn out for each vote whenever it is called when you live in an area governed by a direct democracy. Switzerland calls the events where these votes take place as a “landsgemeine,” or a cantonal assembly. People gather in a designated area in their community in the open air to decide on specific issues. Voting occurs by having people raise their hands instead of using a secret vote. You would still be required to provide proof of citizenship or eligibility to vote before being allowed into this public forum.

7. It creates an efficient system of governing.
The cantons of Switzerland which still follow the pure democracy format only hold their open-air parliament once per year for their citizens. Glarus holds their voting process during the first Sunday in May, while Appenzell Innerrhoden holds their voting day on the last Sunday of April. Attendees show a voting card to enter the inner circle, but anyone can view the process f they wish. It is during this time that officials are chosen, votes are held on referenda, and then every count is voted.

List of the Cons of a Direct Democracy

1. Direct democracies are costly to operate.
Even though you can save money by reducing the number of elected officials drawing a salary, along with all the administrative red tape that creates, the cost of a direct democracy must be considered. The two cantons of Switzerland attempt to avoid this issue some by instituting a single voting day per year, and then appointing officials to handle other elements of daily life. If a majority vote is evident, then the measure will pass right away. If not, then someone counts every hand that is up in the air.

2. It must be structured in a way that allows everyone to participate.
Switzerland extended federal voting rights to women in 1971, but it would be another 20 years before those living in Appenzell Innerrhoden would gain permission to raise their hand during the open-air parliament. The canton didn’t start providing a sign language interpreter until 2018. For a direct democracy to be accurate in its vote, it must make the effort to provide the same quality of information to everyone involved. Failing to do so creates a potential invalidation of the results.

3. People must be knowledgeable to cast votes.
An example of this potential disadvantage comes from Appenzell Innerrhoden in 2009. The canton was “experiencing” hikers and travelers who were wandering around the hills without wearing any clothing. A referendum was brought before the open-air parliament to issue a $175 fine on those who followed this trend. It passed with an overwhelming majority, even though the BBC reports that no one in the canton had actually seen a naked hiker to the best of their knowledge.

Participation in a direct democracy requires knowledge of current events to cast informed votes. There can be a lot of peer pressure to vote in a specific way because that’s what everyone else is doing.

4. It relies on a system that offers national support.
The cantons where a pure democracy is practiced often encounter a discrepancy between what their expectations are for rules, and what the national government provides. Using the naked hiker example from the previous point, Switzerland removed public nudity from the penal code in 1991. That means naked hiking isn’t punishable on a national level, and the laws of the canton are not higher than the federal ones.

5. Direct democracies can be used to discriminate against minority populations.
The example from Appenzell Innerrhoden shows why a direct democracy can struggle when they failed to grant women the right to vote for two decades. The Supreme Court of Switzerland had to intervene eventually to even allow this to happen. People who band together in a clear majority under this structure can influence the course of action the government takes, even if that leads to a destination which is morally or ethically detrimental. That means people in minority groups must rely on outside intervention or decide to leave their home to receive fair representation.

6. People must be invested in the future of everyone for this system to work.
The majority of people cast ballots in every system of government as a way to protect what they’ve currently earned. Most voters look out for themselves first. When living in a structure that requires a direct democracy, then the outcomes become more complex. There is still a need to protect one’s best interests, but there must also be votes for the wellbeing of the government as well. This investment can draw people together into a tighter community when it works as it should, but it can also be used as a wedge to drive people apart from each other.

These direct democracy pros and cons show how important it is to be involved with the overall governing process. When you have a say in what happens in your community, then you have more of an investment in the outcomes that occur. It is often a positive experienced, but it can also be used to discriminate. That is why most forms of democracy take an indirect approach instead.

If you work in a traditional office setting, what is it that makes you feel comfortable while you are there? For a majority of workers in America, they say that they love going to work because of the relationships that they can build with their co-workers. In the past, that meant hiring people from the same background, culture, or ethnicity.

Now companies are realizing that having diversity in the workplace creates a higher level of comfort than having everyone approach situations in the same way. The statistics prove that when businesses focus on creating a diverse environment, there are higher levels of success to find.

• Teams which are racially diverse outperform non-diverse ones by 35%.
• Blind auditions from applications submitted increased the likelihood that a woman would get the open position by up to 46%.
• African-Americans are 16% less likely to receive a job interview invitation when their race is known.
• Teams where there is gender equality present earn 41% more revenue.

Businesses are learning that diversity in the workplace matters. These pros and cons suggest why it should be an emphasis in companies large and small, even if their employees are not always comfortable with the process right away.

List of the Pros of Diversity in the Workplace

1. There is greater predictability with workplace assignments.
Diverse teams give a business the opportunity to assign tasks based on the strengths of each person. There is no longer a requirement to guess at who might have the most experience that is relevant to a project. Mangers who focus on diversity can put together many different parts to assemble a puzzle that works cohesively together. Each person with the appropriate experience drives the team forward, allowing more innovation and productivity to occur throughout each day. This design also means there is a greater level of job satisfaction present, which means less turnover.

2. It supports a stronger economy at every level.
Diversity in the workplace creates a structure that encourages all parties to be involved in the labor force. It is an open invitation to become active because the individual experiences and education that one can provide are treated with genuine value. From an organization standpoint, this creates more opportunities to fill open positions because there is a more significant pool of applicants from which to choose. On a societal level, this focus creates a stronger economy at all levels, from the local community to the international import/ export market.

3. Workplace diversity creates more valuable employees.
When there are specialists working on their greatest strengths within the workplace environment, then it gives the business an opportunity to cross-train workers on new disciplines. This advantage would not be possible if everyone was trained to do the same thing. It is a structure which allows workers to continually grow during their career, developing new skills that can take them up the chain of command higher. It is a process which also improves cultural awareness, additional innovation, and multiple ties to the community that create mutually beneficial successes.

4. It gives a company more access to the specific talent they require.
When there is diversity in the workplace, then there are fewer restrictions on the criteria for hiring a new worker. Managers can focus more on the elements of education and experience as they fit into the current structure of the company instead of trying to find someone who fits a specific personality profile to match everyone else. Those who are responsible for hiring can focus on finding the best person for the job, using skill as the primary driver of success, and that approach eventually lifts everyone to higher levels of success.

5. Diversity in the workplace encourages company growth.
Research from Glassdoor shows that two out of every three workers in the United States wants to join a team that is focused on diversity. 57% of employees want their company to prioritize this approach in their workplace. Creating this emphasis makes it possible for a business to encourage growth because it allows them to recruit the best people for their open positions. Maybe that’s why Josh Bersin discovered that inclusive companies earn 2.3 times the cash flow when compared those who do not make diversity a priority.

6. It also develops more revenues for an organization.
The impact of having just one worker who can fluently speak a second language is immediate. Corporate revenues climb by more than 10% with the work that person does. That means a focus on this one element of diversity for an entire team will improve the overall budget by that amount as well. Diversity creates more revenues because it makes a company become more relatable to multiple demographics. People build relationships with brands that they feel know them on some level. Without diversity, it is a struggle to create a result like this.

7. Diversity in the workplace enhances internal creativity.
People who come from similar backgrounds and experiences will offer ideas that fit into a generic category of “sameness.” It is challenging to find innovative ideas when everyone approaches a problem from the same perspective. That is why diversity is such a powerful element of the modern business environment. It gives managers access to a variety of perspectives that can generate fresh solutions for even complex problems. Creativity is the skill that most businesses crave the most, yet they reduce their access to it if the focus isn’t on the creation of a diverse employee base.

8. Equality is emphasized in society when diversity is the point of emphasis for companies.
Research coming out of Harvard and Princeton suggests that there should be 25% more women working in the labor force right now. There is still a gender gap in place in the United States which causes many women to be paid less than men, even though they are working in the exact same position. Some fields are under-represented by women by more than 45%.

Race and ethnicity are also critical factors to consider when looking at diversity in the workplace. Over 89% of Google’s workforce from 2014-2018 was either white or Asian. Just 0.3% were Native American, while 2.5% were Black/African-American and 3.6% were Latino. Almost 70% of the workforce is men. A genuine focus on diversity helps to shape society to become more equal. It is clear to see that some of today’s biggest companies must do better.

9. It is a policy which gets people to start thinking.
We often look at the majority statistics when speaking of diversity in the workplace as a way to say, “See! The world is changing!” It is essential that we pay attention to the minority statistics as well. One that stands out more than others is this: over 40% of workers don’t want their employer to make diversity a top priority. Companies that institute this policy over the objection of their workers anyway help to create more workplace conversations, reduce issues with burnout, and improve a balanced workload for everyone – even if the team’s preference is to avoid change whenever possible.

10. Diversity in the workplace encourages higher productivity levels.
Teams which focus on improvements to diversity create a strong link for themselves toward higher levels of productivity. This issue applies at every level. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest diversity employment ratings in the world today (for an industrialized nation) and their productivity levels are 35% below Germany, 30% beneath the United States, and in 2015, was 18% below the global average. When a team is racially diverse, then they are 35% more productive. If they are also bilingual or better, then they are 45% more productive. That’s why it is such a point of emphasis for companies today.

List of the Cons of Diversity in the Workplace

1. Diversity still makes it challenging for some cultures to be heard.
Although the presence of diversity within a team helps to improve the brain power that is available to the organization, that isn’t enough to create an environment where everyone feels safe and welcome to share an idea. This issue is particularly prevalent in cultures which focus on being deferential or polite. It is a circumstance which impacts Asian cultures the most, particularly workers who come from Japan or Vietnam. Even if they are invited to share their ideas, they may feel like that is not their role because of their position.

2. It doesn’t eliminate the cultural stereotypes that people have.
There is no denying the value in having local expertise when trying to solve a problem. Companies must also realize that integration must be part of the diversification experience for it to be a successful one. There can be an underlying prejudice between cultures that can limit collaboration and productivity. An excellent example of this involves the antipathy which exists between the Polish and German cultures, or even the French and the British.

You can even see this issue in the United States sometimes. If you ask someone from Wisconsin what the state of Iowa means, you might get a smile and this answer: “Idiots Out Walking Around.” If stereotypes are allowed to exist, then all the company has is diversity in name only, which will not produce the desired results.

3. There can be communication issues found in diverse teams.
Quality translations are always a way to ensure effective communication and marketing. It is also a way to get information lost in the process when working in a diverse team. Even if you have everyone speaking the same language (English, for example), the accents and slang that people have can be challenging to understand. Now apply that issue to different cultures, languages, and ideas. It becomes easy to offend someone without realizing that it what you are doing. Even a simple handshake can have cultural implications in a diverse environment.

4. Diversity in the workplace requires navigation of visa requirements.
If your company decides that hiring someone from overseas is the best way to encourage diversity in the team, then there may be a human resources challenge soon to follow. You must begin to navigate the complex employment laws, visa requirements, and additional expectations that are placed on international workers. Each country has different requirements, and the regulations can change at any time. Companies also discover that changes to their structure sometimes need to happen too, like adding a prayer space, or giving paid time off for specific religious holidays.

5. There are different understandings of the definition of etiquette.
Workers who come from different cultures, countries, or ethnicities will bring along their own attitude of production to the workplace. They will have different behaviors, values, and professional etiquette standards they follow. This process can be one that enriches the team environment, but it also creates misunderstandings in the workplace, ill feelings, and even resentment within the team. Some people may feel that it is inappropriate to leave any work behind at the end of the day, while others might expect to work six hours for full-time pay.

6. Most businesses leave a diversity initiative in the hands of one person.
The primary disadvantage of diversity in the workplace happens when only one executive is given the task of implementing this solution. It is a responsibility which often falls to the Chief Executive Officer. When a single individual is pushing a company toward an environment which is more inclusive, then it invariably becomes shaped by that person’s definition of diversity. The outcomes are then influenced by their priorities. Most CEOs look for higher revenues, stable finances, and improved cash flow as their points of emphasis. Does that create an environment which is truly diverse?

7. Workplace diversity creates a fear of future outsourcing.
One of the most significant fears that employees have during a diversity initiative is the threat of losing their job one day. When someone from another culture, especially one with a lower cost of living, can replicate the same results as workers earning higher wages, then the threat of outsourcing becomes a tangible threat. Large companies save millions of dollars each year by designating specific tasks to offshore locations, independent contractors, and freelancers. It is this issue which often creates the strongest barriers against an inclusiveness initiative. Companies who can de-stress this issue for their teams are the ones which typically see the highest levels of success.

8. Diversity in the workplace can slow down work too.
Although there is a benefit to having more ideas in the workplace to solve problems, this benefit can quickly turn into a disadvantage as well. Teams which are constantly debating ideas will find themselves moving slower at times. When everyone has an idea which offers the potential for success, then each one should rightfully be debated to determine its value. Unless there is a manager who can direct traffic for these discussions, many teams struggle to stay current with their deadlines over time because of this initiative.

These diversity in the workplace pros and cons ask companies of every size to evaluate their current team structures. If your emphasis is on genuine equality, then that must be the approach you take in your hiring decisions. Giving lip service to inclusiveness is not the same as making it a priority. If you want to see results, then hire more women and minorities into your open positions. Create a genuine balance. This structure will give you the best possible chance at success.

The steroids era in baseball is one of the classic examples of what can happen when there is doping in sports. This time in America’s pastime involved players using numerous performance enhancing drugs, resulting in an increased level of offensive performance. There is no “start” date to this era, but it is believed to have begun in the 1980s, and then it ran through the late 2000s. It should be noted that steroids were banned by baseball in 1991.

Doping has created several historical outcomes in sports which are not always treated with the reverence that they would have if drugs or hormonal treatments were not involved. The MLB single-season home run record is an example of this. Since Babe Ruth’s record season of 60 home runs, there have been four players who have held that record since: Roger Maris, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds. All four of these players have their bats in the Baseball Hall of Fame, but they are not there.

Baseball is not the only sport which deals with doping. Every athletic opportunity at almost any age bracket looks at the use of performance enhancers as a way to get the “edge” needed for success. In a survey of student athletes in eastern France, 1.2% of students as young as 11 admitted to using steroids, salbutamol, and even marijuana.

These are the doping in sports pros and cons that we should be worrying about right now.

List of the Pros of Doping in Sports

1. It gives athletes the freedom to take risks that they feel are appropriate.
Performance enhancing drugs give the human body a short dose of medicine that allows people to work out harder, faster, and longer while reducing their risks of suffering an injury. Whether it is applied through a cream, an injection, or pills, athletes can use these items for short periods, and then stop the cycle to allow their bodies to recover. Although this action does come with a risk to their health, that choice should be theirs to make instead of dictated by someone else.

2. Competition is not impacted by the use of performance enhancing substances.
The nature of humanity creates unfair competition at times without the use of drugs or hormones. If we wanted to create an environment that was truly fair, then we would need to ban training and coaching altogether. People who train harder will always go further than those who choose not to train at all. Although competition is unfair if there is unequal access to enhancements, leveling the playing field through deregulation instead of prohibition would create results that were more authentic.

3. Doping doesn’t shift the skill that is required to perform.
Hitters like Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire are often criticized because of their ability to hit a baseball further because of the real or perceived notion that they took drugs to do so. Even if they took performance enhancing drugs every day, that doesn’t change the fact that these men must hit the baseball in the first place to get a home run. Doping might help people perform better on some level, but it doesn’t shift the foundation of their skill at all. You must be able to compete naturally in the first place for this issue to be problematic. If Sosa and McGwire struck out all the time, no one would care about the performance enhancers because they wouldn’t have been in MLB in the first place.

4. It is another tool that athletes can use to reach their personal goals.
Although some athletes might feel pressured into the use of performance enhancing drugs, the results at the end of the day always come back to a choice. No one forces someone to become a competitive athlete, just like no one holds down someone to administer a PED injection unwillingly. People who commit themselves to winning games, performing to high standards, and competing at higher levels feel compelled to make themselves stronger and better. Is it unethical for one athlete to train for 4 hours per day while another only practices for 60 minutes?

5. Doping is something that is a part of sports for generations already.
Even in 2000, when testing for PEDs and doping during the Olympics reached a feverish pitch, only eight people out of 110,000 athletes testing positive for a banned substance. The fact is that athletes who choose to take these methods use the advice of sports physicians and other specialized work from the medical community to “beat” the tests that would detect their usage of these substances in the first place. Athletes who want to compete at the highest level will look for ways to win. That has always been part of the game. Technologies make humans faster and stronger. Should they be banned as well?

6. The rules of fair competition already use manipulative tactics.
We draw a thin line between what is morally acceptable in sports and what is not. People think of doping as something that is unethical because it gives someone a potential “edge” in winning. Then something like loading up on carbohydrates before an extensive endeavor is seen as acceptable because it gives that person “energy.” One could say that it takes more courage to place your health at risk through the use of PEDs than it does to eat four potatoes the night before a competition.

7. Items classified as doping products are often vouched for as a safe item.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States, the National Institutes of Health, and even the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists all vouch on some level that human growth hormone is safe to take. This substance appears on the WADA code as a prohibited substance or method that runs against rules of fair play and character. Isn’t it time we look at the purpose of what an athlete is attempting to accomplish instead of how they take care of themselves? People who follow the “spirit” of a sport will continue to do so, whether they take HGH or like to eat steak every night for dinner.

8. Performance enhancing drugs are often see as illicit drugs by students.
There will always be some students who take steroids or other PEDs because they see their favorite athlete doing the same. That element of permission has always been involved in the youth-athlete relationship. Students will drink the same sodas, buy the same foods, and purchase the products that their idol pitches because it makes the relationship feel closer for them. Survey data suggests that steroid use amongst teens is similar to the trends of other drugs that young people take, including marijuana and cocaine. There’s a good chance that teenage boys taking steroids to workout longer are wanting to look more attractive more than wanting to perform better.

9. Fans are interested in the outcome of the game more than player health.
Did you know that there were only 10 players in the NFL that weighed more than 300 pounds in 1986? There are more than 300 professionals at that weight limit or higher today. No one cared that Mark McGwire was taking nandrolone when he competed during the 1998 season to break the all-time home run record in baseball. Although there are always exceptions, fans are generally more interested in the outcome of a game more than they are the way a player gets ready for it. They want results. Doping, right or wrong, helps to create those results.

List of the Cons of Doping in Sports

1. Performance enhancers have a negative effect on long-term health.
Doping activities create the potential of long-term negative health effects, even if they do offer added strength to a person’s tendons, bones, and muscles. What is often ignored are the long-term consequences of taking this drugs or hormones, which can include acne problems all over the skin, impotence in men, issues with balding, and difficulty in controlling one’s emotions.

Performance-enhancing drugs in children can also stunt a child’s growth. Anyone who is actively doping creates a higher risk of liver or heart damage for themselves, including a higher risk of blood clots.

2. It could create an unfair playing field for the sport.
Despite numerous tests that were “clean,” Lance Armstrong eventually admitted to using banned substances throughout the majority of his cycling career. That included the use of erythropoietin and human growth hormone. He also stated on the Oprah Winfrey show that he had been blood doping. Armstrong won seven Tour de France titles during this time, which shows how dominant someone can be when they go to extreme lengths to manipulate their physical health. Doping can set the stage for unfair play, putting athletes who aren’t taking drugs or hormones at a disadvantage.

3. Elite athletes respond differently to performance enhancing drugs.
PEDs to the average person might produce slightly better results than diet and exercise alone. For the elite athlete, however, the results tell a very different story. That is because the drugs and hormones they use allow them to improve at a much greater extent than any other type of intervention that is found on the market today. Training regimens, biomechanical measurements, and complex physiological responses cannot match what the enhance effects of doping provides. When you’re looking at the “best of the best,” it is clear to see that there are “natural” results, and then there are “enhanced” results.

4. It creates a competitive environment which encourages coercion.
Once a single athlete decides that using performance enhancing drugs is to their benefit, then it creates a powerful effect of peer pressure on the remainder of the individuals involved in that competition. Sports Illustrated demonstrated this effect by surveying Olympic athletes about using doping as a way to experience success. Over 50% admitted that they would be willing to take a drug, even if it eventually killed them, if it would allow them to win each event they entered for five consecutive years. Performance enhancers speak directly to the “win at any cost” mentality that athletes feel pressured into when performing.

5. It holds the athletes hostage physically and competitively.
The International Olympic Committee retains ownership of every urine and blood sample given by an athlete for eight years following the Games in which they competed. As part of their rights in this manner, they are able to re-test samples using new techniques that are developed to determine if a prohibited substance was in use during the event. They can then go back retroactively to change the outcome as a way to hold the person accountable to their actions. That means if a shift in the rules takes place, it is possible for doping activities, real or perceived, to be used as a way to control the outcome of events from an organizational level.

6. It creates a situation where athletes are often operating outside of medical supervision.
The legalization of performance enhancing drugs in competitive events could help to reduce the risks to the health of the athlete because it would place them under medical supervision for their activities. Instead of using doctors to look for ways to beat doping tests, these medical professionals could consult with each athlete to determine the best training regimen to follow that maximizes results. Without this supervision, athletes are often forced to work on their own, which creates a higher risk to their health.

7. Doping changes how the games would be played.
If doping continues unchecked in athlete competition, then it would require changes in the rules to accommodate the shifts in performance. We’ve already seen this happen without the involvement of PEDs as well. Goaltending rules in basketball were introduced to prevent removing the ball from the cylinder after players grew tall and strong enough to get above the rim. The end result of such an action would be a change in the rules, which would create the need for more doping, and that creates a cycle that would continuously repeat unless the performance enhancers were removed from the equation.

8. Sportsmanship is reduced when doping is present in sports.
Programs that seek to remove doping as a viable activity for athletes want to preserve what is valuable about competition in the first place. Athletic competitions and games should be fun, build character, and offer a foundation of honesty. People excel through fair play, ethics, and teamwork. You must have a respect for oneself before there is an embrace of the true competitive nature that occurs during these events. Doping takes this away because there is no long-term self-respect involved. PEDs give you short-term gains at the expense of your long-term health.

9. Doping as a professional teaches kids that it is an acceptable form of conduct.
Many student athletes, including those in youth sports, look up to professionals who play the same game or a similar position as a role model. These people are a significant influence on the life of the child. Many will emulate how they train, work, and play the game as a way to get better. When these kids see their idol involved in doping as a way to get ahead of the competition, then they will be tempted to do the same thing. Professionals might have access to specialized medical care, but most youth will not.

10. Sports would become an issue of access if doping were allowed.
The issue with doping often comes down to this specific disadvantage. Results in any event, at any level, would be based on the amount of access to pharmacological substances more than it would be skill and endurance. The teams that would win most often would be the ones where a majority of the players could afford PEDs and use them most effectively. Fans might be interested in outcomes, and players might be willing to trade glory for a longer life, but none of that changes the fact that taking drugs in sports becomes a competition between the haves and the have-nots.

The pros and cons of doping in sports always come back to choice and fairness. Should an athlete be able to use PEDs as a tool to help them be successful? If they make that choice, does that create a game or competition that is unfair? Sammy Sosa never won the World Series, hit over 600 home runs, and may never make it to the Hall of Fame. Others from the steroids era in baseball face similar circumstances. They might have another opinion on the matter.

Congress gave the go-ahead to start drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as part of the tax-reform package that was passed by Republicans in December 2017. Despite this authorization, any drilling activities are still likely several years away.

There were two lease sales ordered for ANWR by Congress as part of this authorization. The first was to conclude within four years, while the second was within seven. Each lease sale is to include a minimum of 400,000 acres.

Kara Moriarty, President and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, described the timeframe like this to USA Today in January 2018. “My youngest son is 8 – he’s in the second grade. “We probably won’t see production from ANWR until he graduates from college.

No one is sure how much oil is available in ANWR because only a single exploratory well has ever been dug in the region. It is presumed to be rich in natural resources, however, with up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the coastal plain. New environmental surveys have been ordered to determine the overall viability of this project.

In the meantime, these are the drilling in ANWR pros and cons to consider when looking at the overall viability of this project.

List of the Pros of Drilling in ANWR

1. It offers high levels of economic potential for the U.S. GDP.
The primary argument that supporters have for drilling in ANWR is the potential economic gains of this activity. Drilling could create tens of thousands of jobs in its first decade of production. The monetary gains are expected to reach $1.1 billion in its first decade. There is also the benefit of being able to make the United States become more energy independent. Since one-third of Alaska’s jobs are based on the oil industry and these opportunities are declining, this effort would keep the state’s economy alive too.

2. Wildlife has a way of adapting to changing situations.
There is already a massive pipeline that transports oil from the northern coast of Alaska to its southern coast. This 800-mile structure is called the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Wildlife biologists were concerned that the caribou would be disrupted by the presence of this technology, but the opposite effect occurred.

Natalie Boelman, an earth scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, notes that the animals graze underneath the structure as if it isn’t even there. “Surprisingly, they don’t really seem bothered by it,” she told Columbia University’s State of the Planet blog in 2017. “I don’t think they care at all.”

3. The high end of the potential economic activity cannot be ignored.
The United States has one large hope for a conventional oil discovery on land – and that is ANWR. The potential value of what is present there was valued at $500 billion in 2016. Even if production levels go at full speed to access this resource, it will provide continued employment opportunities that make a significant impact to local communities. The Inupiat Eskimo tribe is evidence of what can happen when oil revenues start to flow. They turned their coastal villages from ramshackle buildings into a place with modern schools and clinics – including the installation of indoor plumbing for the first time.

4. It is easier to cleanup spills in ANWR than other drilling locations.
There is no proven system for collecting oil spills that occur underneath the ice that blankets most of the Arctic Ocean throughout the year. The dangerous weather patterns that hit Alaska, like the 2012 storm that blew a drilling rig aground that was owned by Shell, prove that there is danger present. Huge ice sheets can impact seafloor pipelines. If a spill was to occur, ANWR would be the place where it would be easier to provide restoration to the environment.

5. Drilling in ANWR helps the state economy dramatically.
When drilling occurs on federal lands, then the State of Alaska can use its oil production tax to its advantage. That means it may be entitled to up to 50% of the lease income and royalties generated from this activity. The federal government in Washington, DC would receive the other portion. If this drilling activity were to occur offshore, then there wouldn’t be any revenues generated from these activities unless the state could negotiate a payment of some type.

6. There is some evidence to suggest that wildlife could thrive in this setting.
In a 2003 report that looked at the viability of drilling in ANWR, there were notable changes to the lives of animals included with the data submitted to the Bush administration at the time. One of the report’s findings discovered that arctic predators, such as ravens, foxes, and gulls, were thriving in the areas around oil fields because of the food trash that was left behind by human activities. There will always be some impacts that can never be eliminated when access natural resources in sensitive areas, but there continues to be progress made in reducing the severity of what occurs.

List of the Cons of Drilling in ANWR

1. It could threaten the way of life for indigenous tribes.
There are people who currently live in ANWR as they have done since their ancestors first moved to the region. Although the climate is often challenging, especially near the northern portion above the Arctic Circle, changing the environment to accommodate drilling could disrupt their living patterns. These tribes rely on local caribou and other wildlife for their sustenance. There is a very real possibility that migration routes could shift, which could force people off of their lands.

2. The amount of oil produced by ANWR is relatively insignificant.
On the average year in the United States, there are 3.7 billion barrels of oil which come through American ports. The total that is available in this wildlife region would allow for about 6 years of independence at best assuming that the current consumption levels stay the say. The additional products coming from here would not make a significant difference on the price of crude oil as an international commodity, nor would it help to foster energy independence in an impactful way. The results would create a minimal uptick in what could be stored as an emergency reserve at best.

3. There is the increased risk of oil spills in the region.
Oil spills that occur on natural preserves are devastating to the environment and local wildlife. The liquid will coat the feathers or fur of the animals, which destroys the insulation they have to the cold weather in the region. It also negates the water-repellant abilities, so there is an increase in the risk of hypothermia as well. There is a risk that plants could be killed, and the animals eating oil-covered plants would be poisoned when the product is ingested.

4. Production activities destroy the tundra.
When companies begin to explore for oil in regions like ANWR, they create an immediate and negative impact on the local environment. The tracks that their vehicles leave behind can be seen for decades after the event. If production occurs in this region, then there will be new power lines installed, increased road traffic, and construction trucks moving up and down the tundra. Even the noise and debris from these operations would be enough to disrupt caribou and waterfowl living habits.

5. Local wildlife impacts could have global consequences.
Boelman notes that there are birds that cover every puddle and pond in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when the warmer days of spring start to come. There are endangered species that come to this region, along with birds who migrate from all over the world. “If something happens to their breeding grounds,” she told State of the Planet, “it will impact the rest of the planet.” The area designated for drilling is also a critical calving ground for caribou that could be disrupted by the drilling activities.

6. It isn’t a place where energy companies want to be in the first place.
When the first studies about the potential for lease interest went out to energy companies about this opportunity in ANWR, most of them stayed away from the idea without giving it a closer look. Oil explorers in this region would face additional challenges because they’re drilling in an area where no one has a lot of experience. There are no guarantees of resources to be found there yet. Environmentalists seeking to protect the land would likely file lawsuits in an attempt to prevent development activities. Then there is the fact that a future administration could ban or block their investment in the future. Unless oil prices rise and then stay high, this isn’t a project most will pursue anyway.

7. Accessing it now would remove a potential reserve for the future.
The reality of today’s world is that we are starting to look for ways to reduce the use of fossil fuels. We don’t need the resources that are sitting beneath this nature preserve right now. Having access to it won’t impact the cost of oil or natural gas in significant ways. Although there is an employment benefit to consider, even these positions would be temporary. If we know that this resource is available, then keeping it as a critical reserve could be the wiser course of action.

8. It will eventually run out.
The primary disadvantage that we all face when drilling in ANWR is that this is a finite product. Even if we tap all of the reserves which are available here, there isn’t going to be anything to produce one day. We will move on, but the delicate ecosystems of the tundra will stay ravaged for generations. Is it worthwhile to create lasting change in an environment which already supports our needs to generate a few billion dollars’ worth of economic activity over a couple of decades?

9. More natural resource use equates to higher levels of greenhouse gas production.
If we have access to more crude oil, then it becomes possible to create more refined products from this resource. This results in a higher level of greenhouse gas production which could offer ongoing negative impacts to the planet. Although there is some contention about the cause of the world’s warming trend, it is difficult to ignore the fact that it is getting hotter outside. Global land and ocean temperatures as an anomaly have not experienced a decline since the 1970s. They are also at their highest levels in history today.

10. Higher levels of carbon dioxide create other negative impacts.
The actions of drilling for oil in ANWR (and other methods of oil and natural gas extraction) create higher levels of carbon dioxide in our planet’s atmosphere. This shift in content produces an increase in water acidity in the oceans. That creates damage to shellfish and other marine life. Water temperatures melt the glaciers as well, which increases the average sea levels around the world. It generates heavier rainfall events, the intensity of heat waves, and the risks for extreme weather and natural disasters.

11. There is a safety risk to the workers to consider as well.
Working in ANWR will place employees responsible for these activities in a remote location where access to services is limited. There are numerous health and safety hazards associated with oil drilling activities, including scattering and blowouts. If a life-threatening event occurred during these efforts, then it could reduce the odds of the effected employee from being able to survive.

The pros and cons of drilling in ANWR show that the future of this potentially fragile ecosystem is as uncertain as ever. More than 800,000 acres of leases are up for grabs over the next 7 years for companies who might want to invest in this project. Although it could offer more energy to the U.S., the environmental impact may also be a price that is too high to pay. We are years away from knowing with certainty what will happen, so until then, evaluation of these key points is the best that we have.

There are two significant events that define the second world war: the Holocaust and the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan. The decision by the United States to use these weapons in August 1945 is credited with the end of World War II. It is also important to note that those who issue that credit are the ones that were part of the Allied forces during the conflict.

The U.S. only dropped two of these bombs on Japan during the war, but it was a detonation that would be devastating by any definition. More than 80,000 people were killed instantly in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, when the Little Boy uranium-based bomb was dropped over the city.

Then the plutonium-style bomb called Fat Man was dropped over Nagasaki, which instantly killed 70,000 people. It would take just five days after the second bomb for the emperor to proclaim an unconditional surrender.

When all the effects of the radiation from these two bombs is taken into account, the acute effects would kill up to another 250,000 people in

List of the Pros of Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan

1. Despite its devastating impact, each atomic bomb ultimately saved lives.
After the conclusion of the European front in March 1945, Allied forces began turning their attention to Japan. This island nation was the lone holdout in the battle for world domination at the time. The military minds of these countries put together a plan that was called Operation Downfall.

One of the most significant issues in planning this invasion was that the landing locations for an invasion where highly predictable. Japanese forces came to the same conclusions as the Allied planners, so they began to reinforce their key structure points. An all-out defense of Kyushu was planned, with casualty predictions on both sides expected to be very high.

Although the final estimates would vary based on the assessment of the individuals involved, one such document created for the Secretary of War’s staff placed the number at up to 800,000 Allied fatalities, with an additional 10 million Japanese fatalities.

Despite the high number of casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, without the need for Operation Downfall, the actual number of deaths became much lower than anticipated.

2. The action of dropping the two atomic bombs issued in an era of global peace.
The conclusion of World War II created a shift in priorities for the world’s governments. The United Nations came about as an organization to fill in the gap left by the first attempt at the League of Nations. Countries went to war as a way to limit authoritarianism instead of allowing it to spread until it could no longer be contained. Although the United States would face significant conflicts in Korea and Vietnam in the decades following the second world war, the 50-year period between 1951-2000 was one of the most peaceful in the history of recorded human history. There were more threats of wars that governments faced than actual conflicts to fight.

3. We often forget about the fire-bombing campaigns that happened first.
When people debate the morality and ethics of the atomic bombs that were dropped in Japan, they often look at the numbers and discuss the sheer magnitude of the civilian casualties involved – and rightly so. Innocent deaths are always one of the most significant disadvantages of any conflict. The horrors of radiation only magnify this issue exponentially.

What gets left out of this debate was the bombing of Tokyo that occurred before the atomic bombs were dropped. In March 1945, over 100,000 civilians were killed, and another 1 million left homeless, when B-29s dropped a firebomb assault on the city. The government of Japan didn’t blink an eye when that happened. Only the shock of the atomic impact, with its ability to instantly wipe any city off the map, was enough to create movement toward peace.

4. There is no guarantee that the casualties would have changed.
The United States military was planning to firebomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki because of their military influence if the decision on the atomic bombs did not receive a go-ahead. After the destruction experienced in Tokyo, there is an excellent chance that the casualty count would have remained the same. The only difference in the outcome would have been a reduction in future casualties due to the cancer development and birth defects related to radiation exposure. Everyone in these cities were doomed from the moment Allied forces began plotting an eventual end to World War II.

5. It stopped the Soviet Union from repeating its demands from Europe.
When the European theater resolved itself after Allied troops took over Berlin, the Soviet Union began to carve out for itself a nice chunk of space that would eventually become known as the Iron Curtain. It would take over four decades for that veil to fall. The Soviets had their sights set on Japan in the closing days of the war in 1945 as well, envisioning another joint occupation scenario.

Despite the casualties caused by dropping the atomic bombs, the action itself stopped any Soviet ambitions cold in their tracks. The devastating results were so impressive that the Russians backed down from any potential demand to be involved in the Pacific theater. If that hadn’t taken place, the implications of the Cold War to come would have been very different for American politics.

List of the Cons of Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan

1. Most of the people killed in these two bombs were innocents.
When one nation targets another and kills over 200,000 people who are not engaged in active conflict, then it could be argued that such an act is the deliberate and systematic destruction of a national group. Although the legal definition of genocide was not created until 1948 under Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, far fewer people have been killed by an oversight organization and charged with this act. Incinerate civilians as a way to put pressure on their government might save American lives with an atomic bomb, but isn’t all human life equally valuable?

2. American POWs were killed by the atomic bombs in Japan.
There were a dozen American prisoners of war who were killed when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were being held in a police station when the bombs went off. These men, along with up to at least 3,000 American citizens who were living in the cities with relatives, were killed during or immediately after detonation. When history books from the Allied perspective tell the story of what happened, these lives are often not spoken about whatsoever. It shows that Americans were willing to kill their own as way to prevent future casualties.

3. The U.S. killed Allied troops during the bombing runs as well.
There were another 8 British and Dutch prisoners of war that were killed during or immediately after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Even though the Quebec Agreement required that nuclear weapons would only be used when there was mutual consent, so Britain was on-board with the two bombing runs. It should be noted that even President Truman told his Secretary of War that they would only be used on military objects, on soldiers and sailors, and not any women or children. That was why Tokyo and Kyoto were spared in the first place. Unfortunately, the results didn’t end up as intended, even if the cities held military significance.

4. There were more atomic bombs planned for Japan too.
There was another atomic bomb planned to be ready for use on August 19 if the Japanese had decided not to surrender. Another three additional bombs were in the process of being ready for September, with another three to follow in October as well. The actual order for these weapons was to drop them on cities in Japan as they were ready to go. It wasn’t until a response to a memorandum placed on August 10 that changed this to the order of the President.

5. Cancer increases are directly linked to these atomic weapons.
Radiation exposure does not immediately create a surge in cancer cases after the dropping of an atomic weapon. They have a minimum latency period of at least five years, while leukemia cases can sometimes appear in as little as two years, but peaking about 6-8 years after the event. Almost all of the cases of leukemia associated with these bombs involved an exposure of at least 1Gy. Up to 46% of the cancer deaths from the region between 1950-2000 could be potentially related to the fallout of the weapons involved in these attacks.

6. There was an increase in birth defects after the bombs were dropped.
It wasn’t just the current generation that experienced a negative impact because of the atomic bombs falling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was an increase in birth defects that occurred in the years after the event as well. Anyone with an exposure of 0.2Gy or higher faced an increased risk of experiencing this risk. The actual number of miscarriages, stillbirths, and other infant health issues was never documented in Japan after the war, so exact figures are not known.

7. Blockades were just as effective as a fighting strategy to cut off supplies.
Some military strategists argue that Operation Downfall was not even necessary because of the impact that naval blockades around the islands were having. Over 60 significant cities in Japan were already destroyed through conventional bombing techniques before the atomic bombs were dropped. The Soviet Army had attacked Japanese troops in Manchuria with great success. With more resources funneled into this strategy, the potential for an unconditional surrender was possible without changing the way we perceive warfare today.

The pros and cons of dropping the atomic bombs in Japan are being reconsidered because of their profound impact on the world today. Could this action have been a preventative measure to end the war quickly and save lives? That is always possible. It also meant that the U.S. would become the first nation in history to unleash this type of weapon in conflict on cities where the civilian population outnumbered the military contingent on a scale of 5:1.

Socioeconomic safety programs in the United States are viewed as a last-resort effort to support yourself or your family. The goal of governments who provide these resources is to remove as much fraud as possible from the system. Then there is the eventual goal to help everyone find a meaningful job, so that eventually the individual or household can be self-supportive.

The United States currently has a drug use rate of 9.4%. Because the use of illicit items historically impacts low-income households more than those at the median income level, 20 states have passed legislation of some type that attempts to discover individuals on welfare programs like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) who may be using this support to feed their addictions.

Wisconsin even took the extra step of including a provision in their legislation to test individuals who participate in SNAP’s (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) employment and training program.

This idea is not without its own set of controversies, so here are the pros and cons of drug testing welfare recipients to consider.

List of the Pros of Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

1. Drug testing helps to identify barriers that could keep people from working.
One of the primary benefits that come with the information obtained through drug testing is that it offers social workers data about what barriers may be in place for an individual. Addiction can keep people out of meaningful employment. When this process is used as part of an overall work assessment, then it can identify the various obstacles that are in place that may eventually lead to work. It is a way to help people know what they need to do to find the job that they want.

2. It may be a prudent use of taxpayer dollars to remove fraud from the system.
No one likes the idea of having their money wasted. When households pay taxes each year, they want their government to spend those funds in a way that maximizes the value of their contribution. Having resources given to people who are struggling with addiction that do not result in help is not prudent spending. The goal of these programs is to ensure that the funds being given through the welfare programs are spent on the items that are necessary for survival instead of on additional drugs.

3. The testing program can help to identify people who require treatment services.
Individuals who are struggling with addiction are not always ready to admit that they are dealing with this issue. American Addiction Centers notes that the cost of drug abuse and addiction in the United States adds $200 billion to the costs of criminal justice, lost workplace production, and healthcare needs. One out of every eight people who struggle with a drug issue are also struggling with alcoholism. People who are unemployed are almost twice as likely to struggle with addiction compared to those who are not. Creating this policy is one way to theoretically identify the people who are most at-risk of developing an illicit addiction that could keep them out of the labor force for a prolonged period.

4. There is a precedent in the job market for drug testing.
Drug testing is often part of the pre-employment process when someone starts a new job. All federal, state, and private employees are subject to these tests in the United States. There are anti-discrimination regulations in about a dozen states, along with some reasonable accommodation provisions, that do not exclude an offer of employment just because a positive test comes back. The goal of these tests is often to find what barriers a new employee will face in their future success with that company.

5. It helps to discourage long-term drug use.
When more requirements are added to the process of applying for welfare programs, then it discourages people from the process who are in it to make a quick buck. The goal of these services is to provide help to the families who require it so they can get back on their feed. These people will go through the paperwork bureaucracies of the system because they require it for their basic needs. The headache involved also encourages a family to stay in the system for the least amount of time possible because of the frequent updates required.

6. These programs create an incentive to not use drugs.
One of the most positive aspects of the welfare drug testing programs that exist in the United States today is the fact that they encourage people to stop using illicit drugs. People will typically do what is necessary to ensure the survival of themselves and their families. If you can get clean and produce a negative sample, then the motivation to earn these benefits can help people recover from their issues faster. That makes it easier to find a good job or enroll in school to find that employment, eventually reducing your need to receive state assistance.

7. It encourages a contract of accountability.
People are more willing to change when there is a structure of accountability supervising their actions. That is what this legislation provides. It creates a social contract that says an individual who requires welfare services will stay clean or work to get clean in exchange for receiving resources for their basic necessities. No one questions the fact that taxpayers should help to provide support someone in need. They’re just wanting an investment for their return.

List of the Cons of Drug Testing Welfare Recipients

1. It costs a lot of money to find minimal results.
Think Progress conducted an intensive study of the processes involving drug testing on welfare recipients in 2015 when there were seven states with active programs: Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah. They discovered that these states collectively spent more than $1 million on the effort to find drug users abusing the welfare systems of each location, but then found very few people who were. Just one state had a usage rate above 1% in this study.

Florida’s law that required all applicants for TANF to pass a urine drug test found 108 positive results out of more than 4,000 applicants at a cost of $118,140. Anyone who tested negative were reimbursed by the state – and that’s just one example.

2. Wisconsin only found 10 people who received treatment for addiction.
From July 2016 to February 2018, about 3,800 applicants completed a drug abuse screening test to non-custodial parents and a “small subset of cash welfare recipients,” according to information supplied by the Department of Children and Families in Wisconsin. During this period, applicants would fill out a 10-part questionnaire which asked the applicant if they abused more than one drug at a time.

Out of the 3,800 people questioned, only 83 of them were referred to drug testing because of their answers. From that number, 8 people refused to submit for a test, while 12 others failed. The state eventually spent up to $8,300 on this pilot program to refer 10 people to treatment successfully – a service which the government didn’t even pay for as the payer of last resort.

3. It creates a negative stigma around the concept of being poor.
By creating a blanket program that requires all recipients of welfare to be drug tested, a negative stigma gets created that adds shame and guilt to people who are already struggling to provide for their loved ones. This feeling can be enough to drive some people away from the benefits they might rightly deserve. Although some may argue that employers perform drug testing as well, that option is voluntary. A person can apply for a different job, but they cannot apply to a different state to receive the basic resources they require for survival.

4. The policy may stop people from receiving the treatment they require.
The element of discovery can also drive people away when they are struggling with a drug addiction. As the program in Wisconsin noted, there were people who refused to submit to the test after their questionnaire. Another two individuals who were referred to a treatment facility refused to receive services. Forcing people into a scenario where they must offer this information in exchange for help with basic supplies makes it so that drug users are less willing to disclose, which keeps them from connecting to treatment programs.

5. Some of the welfare testing programs have been struck down by the courts.
Florida’s system of drug testing welfare recipients was halted by a district judge in December 2013. It permanently stopped enforcement of the laws requiring this issue because it was ruled to violate a person’s constitutional protections against unreasonable search or seizure. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in 2014.

The only plans that are currently deemed to be legal or valid are the options that require suspicion-based testing instead of mandatory data supplements to receive benefits. Arizona only requires individuals convicted of a previous drug-related offense to provide this data in their proposals.

6. Identifying treatment needs is not the same as providing them.
When these policies would find drug users who could benefit from an intervention to help them overcome their addictions, most states could not guarantee results for the individuals involved. Most programs do not guarantee a spot in a treatment facility if the welfare division sends an applicant over with a referral. As people discovered in Wisconsin, the state only pays for this treatment if there is no other option available. Even the places where TANF money was used to expand access to programs have seen few results, so the efforts have dried up.

7. It is usually the children who suffer the brunt of any service denial.
A significant majority of the TANF aid recipients in the United States are children. About 75% of the recipients are families with children. Although the statistics show that few positive results are found during this policy (and some states tested thousands of applicants without a single positive case), the denial of services will impact the kids more often than the adults. Although some regulations state that the parents would lose their portion, but the child would not, the government is still cutting funds from a family in need. The child doesn’t live on their own or do their shopping by themselves.

8. There are more effective ways to solve this problem.
As Think Progress points out, if lawmakers are concerned about the substance abuse levels among welfare recipients more than the money spent on the programs, then there are more effective options than drug testing to help people toward an eventual recovery. Participating in substance abuse programs helps to identify specific barriers. Since TANF has already lost 28% of its value since its funding hasn’t been increased in more than two decades, administrators must be resourceful with their funds.

9. It changes the socioeconomic definitions of humanity.
The average person is not required to receive a drug test as they go about their daily lives. Even if you include the provisions of employer-based testing, no one else except those in the criminal justice system are mandated to receive tests. This legislation creates a level of blanket suspicion for those living in poverty that creates the assumption that everyone who is poor is trying to take advantage of “free” money. The reality of fraud in the welfare system is that most states see a rate that is below 1%, which is less than the average business. Some report rates lower than 0.5%. The idea that people shouldn’t have access to vices, including alcohol or cigarettes, because they are poor sets a challenging standard for the rest of society.

The pros and cons of drug testing welfare recipients come down to a single value proposition. Is it more cost-effective to be proactive in trying to identify people who struggle with illicit addictions that could cost the government money? Or is it cheaper to be reactive in this situation, providing basic services to everyone, and then offering help when people are ready for it? This emotionally-charged topic doesn’t offer an easy solution in either case.

Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that were created through the in vitro fertilization process. These eggs are then donated for research purposes with the informed consent of their donors. Researchers do not derive embryonic stem cells from eggs that are fertilized in a woman’s body.

Women do not have abortions to harvest their embryonic stem cells, nor do any providers sell fetal tissue for these cell lines to develop.

Human embryonic stem cells come from a transference of cells from a preimplantation-stage embryo in a laboratory culture dish. It is mixed with culture medium, allowing the cells to divide, and then spread over the surface of this dish. These cells can then develop into all three derivatives of the primary germ layers, making it possible for them to eventually turn into one of the over 200 different cell types that are found in the human body.

It is not possible to save the embryo when these cells are harvested from it, which ends the potential future viability of human life. That is where a majority of the embryonic stem cell research pros and cons focus on when discussing this subject. How you personally define human life will usually dictate which side of the debate you support.

List of the Pros of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

1. The embryonic stem cells are harvested 5-7 days after conception.
Adult stem cells do not provide the same benefits as embryonic ones from a therapeutic standpoint. They fall short in their viability to treat genetic diseases. That’s because the same disease found in the adult body can be present in their stem cells. When the harvesting takes place, it occurs during the first week after conception. At this stage, the embryo has not yet developed to a stage where a personal identity can be assigned to it, nor can it live outside of a specialized environment. It is essentially a mass of cells.

2. Researchers use the embryonic stem cells from discarded embryos.
The IVF process which creates embryos for transplantation in the first place are often discarded without a second though. Reporting by The Telegraph in 2012 found that over 1.7 million human embryos were discarded during or after the conception process. Between 1991-2012, there were 3.5 million human embryos created, but only roughly 235,000 successful implantation procedures. About 840, 000 were put into cold storage, while just 2,000 were stored for donation.

Approximately 6,000 embryos during this two-decade period were set aside for medical research. Compared to the 1.4 million that were implanted as a way to start a pregnancy, where 1 in 6 failed, the issue of morality is more complex than the black-and-white world that some people create.

3. Embryonic stem cells can be harvested ethically from almost any perspective.
New technologies make it possible for doctors to harvest remaining embryonic stem cells from the umbilical cord after a child is born. Even if parents decide to store cord blood instead of make a donation, the product can still contain a line of embryonic stem cells that could be useful for research purposes. Since the umbilical cord doesn’t stay attached to the child, nor does the cord blood get reabsorbed into the mother or the baby, the only way to unethically take this resource is to do it without asking.

4. Pain is not felt during the embryonic stem cell procedure.
When researchers destroy an embryo as they harvest the line of stem cells that develops, there is no pain experienced by this cell group. Researchers believe that a fetus doesn’t have the concept of pain developed until around the 20th week of gestation. Most of the embryos that are used for this process have been frozen anyway, kept in storage because there is no intention to use the cells to hopefully create a pregnancy one day anyway.

Fetal tissues wouldn’t supply the embryonic stem cells anyway because at that stage of development, they have already turned into what they are going to be. That makes it virtually impossible to study their qualities at the level where they would be medically beneficial.

5. No embryonic stem cells are taken without consent.
IVF doctors don’t take fertilized eggs away from women or couples with an evil laugh, thinking about all the dastardly ways they can manipulate embryonic stem cells for personal gain. People don’t steal frozen embryos, encourage abortions, or harvest the tissues from a growing fetus to serve a medical or political agenda. Every embryonic stem cell line comes from the consent of its donor. No research on those cells will take place unless there is explicit consent offered by those involved.

6. We do not know the full potential of this new field of medical science.
We are still in the early stages of research to determine the full potential value of embryonic stem cells as a treatment option for some individuals. As the University of Michigan notes, it may lead to more effective treatments for serious human ailments. The future discoveries in this field could alleviate the suffering for millions of people around the world. Spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and juvenile diabetes are just a few of the conditions which could be improved if medical studies are given time and funding to reach a conclusion.

7. Treatments using embryonic stem cells have already produced results.
Early embryonic stem cell treatments through the use of cord blood therapies have already produce positive outcomes for roughly 10,000 people. These treatments offer new ways to find a cure for 70+ different diseases with this option. Kids that have an immunodeficiency disorder and receive this form of treatment see a treatment success rate of 90% today – and that figure continues to grow.

List of the Cons of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

1. It destroys the future potential of human life.
Whether you feel that life begins at conception, at some stage in the womb, or after birth, everyone can agree on the idea that an embryo represent the future potential of life. We can get lost in the semantics of how life begins to support how we feel, but the bottom line here is that the termination of an embryo stops the future potential for that group of cells. Using it for research purposes, even with the consent of the mother or couple involved, means you’re trading future human potentiality for current potentiality. Is that really a justifiable action?

2. The number of successful treatment outcomes is relatively minor.
There are significant barriers in place when looking at the potential of an embryonic stem cell treatment. There are unstable gene expressions which occur when this method is used, along with the formation of tumors, and some people even see a failure in the cell’s ability to activate to a specific purpose. Until these challenges are addressed in clinical settings, the full potential of this treatment can never be realized. Does it make sense to continue harvesting cells from embryos if the failure rate remains high?

3. People can still reject embryonic stem cell treatments.
The human body naturally rejects the items that are not part of its regular genetic makeup through its immune system response. That is why the people who go through an organ transplant procedure receive anti-rejection medication that slows or stops this response. Even if the embryonic stems cells go through their regular activation method, there is still the potential of rejection present.

Even if an embryonic clone of an individual could be created to product exact cells which mimic the body’s genetic makeup, there would still be a risk of rejection because of the genetic duplication process.

4. It can be argued that embryos do meet the definition of “life” from a scientific view.
There are currently three specific guidelines in the framework of the definition of life as we think of it when encountered on our planet or perhaps elsewhere in our solar system or galaxy one day.

• There must be a capacity for growth that produces functional activity.
• It must offer some type of reproduction capability during one stage of its existence.
• There must be a change which occurs over the lifetime of the cells in question that happens before death.

5. People fund research activities with their taxes.
Federal law in the United States prohibits taxpayer funding to be used for abortion services unless specific exceptions apply. What many people do not realize is that over $500 million in research funding has been given to this medical field since 1996 because even though portions of this field were outlawed, all existing stem cell lines currently being worked on at the time were grandfathered into the legislative process.

The Supreme Court affirmed the federal stem cell research could continue in 2013 despite a long-running appeal that such an action is a violation of the Dickey-Wicker Act that prohibits the destruction of an embryo.

6. It is a time-consuming process to create viable embryonic stem cells.
For the stem cells to become a viable research tool, they must undergo several months of development in strict laboratory conditions before they are valuable in any way. Then there is the cost involved with the process as well. The 2017 estimated federal funding for all categories of stem cell research was $1.58 billion. Embryonic stem cell research received $347 million, while umbilical cord blood or placenta-based stem cells received $34 million.

7. Many of the stem cell lines under research are two decades’ old.
Most of the approved embryonic stem cell research lines that are worked on in the United States were created on or before August 2001. Those lines were found to be contaminated with animal proteins, which seems to have prevented any of them from being created as a model to treat human disease. Only 16 out of the 70 lines approved by the federal government remain because a majority of them were inadequately characterized. These cells also came from an Israeli clinic, which means they do not incorporate the levels of racial and ethnic diversity that genuine research requires.

The pros and cons of embryonic stem cells look at the potential of what this new field of medical research could provide compared to the harm it may cause. There are deeper issues here that go beyond “we can” or “we shouldn’t.” Since a majority of embryos are thrown away, shouldn’t there be outrage over that fact from the pro-life movement? And since 1 in 6 attempted implants fails, is there not more to consider here than the intentional actions of research? By taking a look at all sides of this issue, the debate tends to become a complex set of moral judgments made on the individual level instead of a generic right or wrong answer to determine.

An entrepreneur is defined as an individual who operates and organizes a business, or multiple opportunities, while taking on a more significant financial risk than normal to do so.

The issue that many of these people face, along with the average leader in today’s society, is also this: they don’t really have a “job.” There is a lot of media hype that you’ll find today about all the good stuff that happens when you decide to pursue what you are passionate about. You can fine memes everywhere today about how evil corporations are, or how awesome it is to be working on your own.

That has driven many people into a world where they are coming up with new definitions of being unemployed instead of creating an earning opportunity for themselves.

“It’s okay that I’m not earning money,” someone might say, “because I’m building my brand and platform presence.”

Being an entrepreneur is not a job, but you can turn it into one when you take smart risks, make real investments, and put sweat equity into your future. That’s not easy to do.

That’s why reviewing these critical pros and cons of being an entrepreneur must happen before you go down this rabbit hole for good.

List of the Pros of Entrepreneurship

1. You have an opportunity to grow in your career.
When you decide to take the plunge to become an entrepreneur, then you are giving yourself the ability to fulfill your aspirations, goals, and passions as an individual. You get to be the boss of your environment. There is no one who interferes with your decisions, the place you wish to work, or how you want to approach situations. Your life gets to be your own, which means you take the risks that fall into your comfort zone. If there is a market demand for your services, then you have the chance to make some money.

2. There is a lot more independence as an entrepreneur.
Because you get to be your own boss when working as an entrepreneur, there is no one there to peer over your shoulder to tell you what to do. You are free to make decisions in your professional or personal life based on the needs you have in that moment. You can decide to work whatever hours you want, whenever you wish to work them, and even change your office location if you wish. This independence extends to any employees you have as you all work together to earn money.

3. You can have flexible working hours as an entrepreneur.
An entrepreneur will choose the working hours that suit their needs the best. Although Gary Vaynerchuk suggests that you must put in 18-hour days when you first get started, some entrepreneurs can get by with an 80-hour per week hustle. Some opportunities may only require a handful of hours at first because there isn’t much work coming in to complete. If you have access to resources and outsourcing, it is possible to find a place where you can sit back and start working as little as possible each day.

4. There is an immediate ability to earn as an entrepreneur.
Although you are taking more risks with your income as an entrepreneur, there are more opportunities to build wealth when you pursue this lifestyle as well. Employees are constrained by a specific salary or hourly rate. It doesn’t matter if they work harder or not – they will still be paid the same. If you are an entrepreneur, then you own the company outright (even if you’re working as a sole proprietor). That means you should be receiving the largest share of the profits which start coming into the company. You can earn as much as you want based on the demand that is available for your products or services.

5. You have opportunities to change or explore.
You are not stuck in a job that you hate when you are working as an entrepreneur. If you see a new opportunity that looks intriguing and there is the potential to earn more money, then you can start to pursue it. Even if that means re-training yourself or your employees or expanding your business, you hold the power to shift gears whenever you wish. That means you are always the creator of your destiny. If you want to start exploring a different horizon, then push forward and do it.

6. It is a chance to discover what makes you tick.
Instead of worrying about what is going on at the office, the world of the entrepreneur looks at the quality of the idea that you’re pursuing. It is an opportunity to embrace your creative center, following wherever your imagination might lead. Instead of trying to build a reputation that can earn you a promotion one day, the focus of your daily tasks is to improve your life by helping others to improve their own in some way. The only obstacles that get in your way are the ones that you allow to be there. If you’ve always wondered what kind of person you were, spending time as an entrepreneur will show you everything you’ve ever wanted to know.

7. It is an opportunity to earn based on your full potential.
There are no limitations to your income when you’re working as an entrepreneur. You will always earn based on the quality of your idea, your ability to market it, and how effective your selling techniques happen to be. The only caps on your wealth are the ones that you allow to be there in the first place. If you feel like you’re not earning enough to make ends meet, then even a side hustle as an entrepreneur can help you to find the supplemental cash that you need – and it could be enough to help you get free of the 9-5 grind every day to do your own thing.

8. You have new opportunities to get involved in your community.
Because you can set your own hours as an entrepreneur, there can be more free time to help you be active in beneficial ways in your community. Your new business can become part of the chamber of commerce if you wish. There are places for you to volunteer, like being a Little League coach or a leader in the Girl Scouts of Scouts BSA. You will find food banks, non-profits, and others in your community who could use a helping hand. One of the best reasons to become an entrepreneur is that you can make a real difference in the lives of others, which allows you to do the same for your own.

9. It is an opportunity to get your ideas out quickly.
If you are working for a traditional employer, then it can be a challenge to get your ideas out first to the market. There are multiple layers of hierarchy that you must navigate in the traditional employment environment. You may not even receive full credit for the results that your creativity generates when you earn a regular paycheck. When you operate as an entrepreneur, this issue goes away completely. You can start solving problems for people proactively, which gives you an opportunity to create products or services that can make you some extra cash.

List of the Cons of Entrepreneurship

1. The leave benefits of an entrepreneur are not the same.
When you work as an employee under a traditional employment contract, then there are leave benefits and holidays for which you may qualify. These are specific times of the year where you can enjoy being paid while not actually being at work. You might receive discretionary sick time to use if you feel under the weather or need a mental health day. Vacation times are paid as well, often taken when you want to get away. Holidays are paid-time off. When you’re working as an entrepreneur, these options are not always available.

2. You do not have a guaranteed income as an entrepreneur.
One of the biggest advantages that employees have when compared to those in the pursuit of entrepreneurism is a guaranteed paycheck. Although there is the threat of being fired or laid off, the income you receive for your work comes in on a regular schedule. That means entrepreneurs are working with lower levels of financial security for themselves and their families. The payment an employee receives often includes a range of financial benefits for their family as well, including health and life insurance.

3. There are no fixed working hours when you’re an entrepreneur.
When you work in a traditional employment setting, then you are given fixed working hours with a guarantee of payment. It is a contract outlined between you and the company that offers compensation at a specific level. If you exceed those hours, then you can earn additional wages, benefits, or opportunities in the future. Some workers receive “hours in lieu” that work like vacation time.

If you are an entrepreneur, then you are working whenever a task must be completed. There are no holidays, vacations, or sick days unless you set your work aside for them – and then it waits for your return. You’re not getting paid (unless you have passive income) unless you work. Justin Zhu, CEO of Iterable, says he works from 11am to 5pm, and then 9pm to 3am, as a way to stay productive.

4. You are the one required to do all of your updates.
If you’re working as an entrepreneur, then there is an excellent chance that you are using technology to make things happen. That’s a lovely tool to use when things are up-to-date. When your firmware needs to update to a different version or the software stops function, then you stop working until the process completes itself. You could find yourself losing 2+ hours out of a day trying to fix your tech problems. Unless you budget time for this on a regular basis, there will be times when you’ll struggle to meet deadlines because something isn’t working right.

5. There are more responsibilities as an entrepreneur.
When you are active in the employment world, then you are given a specific role or assignment to complete. You are only responsible to perform the tasks given to you, which are usually related to the role in which you’ve been hired. There isn’t a need to worry about the work that others are doing. You get paid for that limited scope or tunnel vision. You even receive appraisals based on how well you perform in your role which can often lead to promotions. If you’re an entrepreneur, then you’re responsible for everything all of the time without exception.

6. You must have high levels of self-discipline as an entrepreneur.
Entrepreneurs succeed only when they can create standards for themselves that they adhere to when fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. This trait must extend to their direct reports as well. There must be some level of natural leadership present within the atmosphere of the opportunity under pursuit for there to be any chance of success. If you decide to slack off when there is work to be done, you have that choice – but it could also limit the amount of progress you make on an idea.

7. There are higher levels of stress as an entrepreneur.
You don’t have a guaranteed income as an entrepreneur. There isn’t a boss around that can offer you advice if you’re stuck on a problem. You might not have any colleagues to rely on for support. There are plenty of people in this position who are working solo every day, mired in their home office, struggling to make ends meet. Being your own CEO, managing your marketing, legal work, and accounting leads to high levels of stress. That’s why there are some people who like the idea of following this trend, but then discover that it isn’t right for them.

8. You might need some cash to get started on a new idea.
There are some business opportunities that can be started for next to nothing. If you’re a sole proprietor who offers a standard service that can be sold online, then all you need to do is create a website or join a platform, put up your listing, and then start to market yourself. If you want to start an LLC or corporation, however, then you may need to have a few thousand dollars at-the-ready to begin the investment process. Most entrepreneurs start in debt because they need to cover their start-up costs. If you can’t turn a profit, then you could lose everything when pursuing a dream.

9. There are tax implications to consider.
If you earn money as an entrepreneur, then you become your own employer in the eyes of the tax laws in the United States. That means you are responsible for the employer’s share of the Social Security and Medicare withholding in addition to your own. The 2018 tax year pegged this rate at 15.3%.

These pros and cons of being an entrepreneur will either encourage you to chase after an idea or stick with the life you know. There is no in-between status with this opportunity. You are either willing to take risks or you are not. It gives you a chance to build an independent lifestyle, but it can also cause you to work more hours than you can ever remember. How you define wealth will likely determine if this is a world that is right for you.