The first ideas of a European Union as we know it today began to form in the days after the second world war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, sometimes referred to as NATO or the North Atlantic Alliance, created an intergovernmental military compact between 29 European and North American nations that was signed on April 4,1949.

The purpose of this initial agreement was to create a response to the Soviet Union in the days after Germany was defeated. The Russians were taking possession of countries surrounding their border as a way to protect themselves against another invasion. They were imprisoning civilians, forcing them to join the Soviet military, or worse. NATO gave the smaller nations a chance to cooperate with one another to prevent a complete takeover of the continent.

This relationship began to formalize into different industries and sectors over the next four decades until the economies of the smaller nations were directly tied to each other. Instead of continuing on with different economic priorities and currencies, the European Union formed on November 1, 1993. This process created an intergovernmental agency with oversight over industries and economies which were already working together.

It continues to grow with more member nations as a way to provide stability to the region. With the issues involving Brexit, along with the persistent threat of terrorism in the region, there are some critical issues the EU faces today as well. Here are the advantage and disadvantages to consider when looking at the European Union as an entity.

List of the Pros of the European Union

1. It builds a profile of security in the region to prevent instability.
The nations of Europe were often at odds with each other historically before they came together to form NATO? There are some cultures which do not get along with others, which creates preconceived notions about certain people that still exist. Population centers in Poland and Germany are frequently at odds with one another, as are the cultures of France and Britain. When you add in the history of religious hostilities in the region, including the organization of force and coercion found today, the cooperation of governments helps to keep the region at a relative level of stability compared to what it would be without its presence.

2. The European Union creates more jobs for the continent.
As of January 2019, the European Union consists of 28 different member states out of the 45 recognized governments currently operating on the continent. This combination of factors has led to an internal single market where there is a standardized system of laws which apply to each member state. It is a process which ensures the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people across the continent. These activities generate employment opportunities that would not be there otherwise. Up to 1 in 10 jobs on the continent are linked to the EU, with additional opportunities in exports or imports around the world linked to this structure.

3. It helps to improve the environment throughout Europe.
Over the 25+ years of existence, the European Union has worked diligently to make significant environmental improvements across the continent. Over 90% of tourism areas currently meet or exceed water quality standards today. There are beaches which have gone through a complete restoration process. Cities have had their town squares rebuilt, pedestrian-only streets created, and new business opportunities to pursue. Cycling has become a viable mode of transportation in several metro areas.

4. The European Union helped to industrialize its members.
The primary goal of the European Union is to create new forms of economic cooperation. This process dates as far back as 1951 when six countries (Italy, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands) began to work with each other. Joining the EU today is a complex procedure which takes time to complete. There are several conditions which an applicant nation must meet to be considered for qualification.

These key points are referred to as the Copenhagen criteria.

• There must be stable institutions in place which guarantee democracy, human rights, the rule of law, and respect for and protection of minority groups.
• It must have a functioning market economy in place, along with the capacity to cope with competition and additional market forces that happen in Europe.
• This new member must have the ability to effectively implement the obligations of membership, including the political, monetary, and economic responsibilities of joining the union.

There are additional requirements that the European Union can mandate as well. When the Western Balkans wanted entry, then a stabilization and association process was required to establish “neighborly relations” with regional cooperation.

5. It helps to create higher levels of prolonged peace throughout the continent.
Warfare is something that is an unfortunate aspect of human existence. It has been around since the beginning of our recorded history. Even the story of Cain and Abel suggests that jealousy created the foundation for conflict during our earliest moments, regardless of one’s religious preferences. The European Union changed that when cooperation began with the formation of NATO in 1949.

Before the last half of the 20th century, the lowest sum of years in war for all countries on the continent was 209, achieved during the 50-year period between 1701-1750. Between 1901-1950, this figure was 326. It was only 74 from 1951-2000.

6. The European Union brought the “Great Powers” of Europe together.
Since the start of the 16th century, the Great Powers of Europe fought each other up to 100% of the time during some periods. Since the completion of the second world war, that figure has plummeted to 0% – and has stayed that way for over 20 years. Even the absolute number of war deaths involving at least one state has been on the decline since 1946.

7. It creates an easier form of travel for residents and visitors to the EU.
The Schengen visa and passport gives people access to the largest free-travel area in the world that involves crossing borders to different nations. Only the United States offers a larger area of free travel with certain visa opportunities. If you receive this visa, which is the most common one issued in Europe, then it enables the holder to enter and freely travel within the zone without encountering border controls. You only need to apply for a national visa if you play to work, study, or live in one of the countries for 90 days or more.

Almost 15 million people used a Schengen visa in 2017 to travel throughout Europe. Residents with a passport can also travel to South America and the Caribbean without needing a visa because of territories held be Schengen-member countries.

8. The European Union creates an influential economic influence on the rest of the world.
The EU-28 working together creates an influential force on the world’s economics that is comparable to other large or wealthy member nations, such as the United States, Australia, China, or Russia. Even though there are nine member countries which do not use the Euro as their currency, they still offer a positive impact on the overall Eurozone and the economics available in the region. With this structure, it becomes possible to negotiate lower rates, work on economies of scale, and provide additional opportunities for workers to find gainful employment.

List of the Cons of the European Union

1. It creates more opportunities to bypass border controls.
Although having the freedom to move about the European Union is a distinctive advantage, there are some people who take advantage of this setup to create terror opportunities for political leverage. Since 2014, the number of attacks experienced on the continent has risen from two per year to 33 per year. Although the number of deaths has gone down, the arrests associated with terrorism activities as risen from 395 to 705.

Recent years have seen a dramatic increase of incidents, beginning with the Charlie Hebdo massacre in 2015. There were the coordinated Paris attacks, the numerous vehicle attacks, and more than a dozen foiled attempts that could have taken more lives. Having additional border at the security may have prevented some of these issues.

2. The European Union still encounters issues with division.
Although countries have been less inclined to go to war with each other after joining the European Union, which is why the former states of Yugoslavia are being pushed toward entry, that doesn’t mean there aren’t issues of political division to consider. You won’t find a neat line that goes down the middle of the continent when trying to determine this divide, but there are concerns of clashing values, visions, and national interests which tend to separate the east from the west.

Nationalism is on the rise in many areas, but none may be more blatant about it than Hungary. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has cracked down on the local judicial system, educational institutions, the free press, and civil society in general. It is at the stage where they might be denied entry to the EU if they weren’t already a member of it.

3. It features economic cooperation that comes at a price.
The members of the European Union are supposed to provide economic resources to this institution, just as they are to the structure of NATO to maintain their pact of mutual cooperation. 98% of the funding comes from the EU’s own resources, which includes sugar levies, customs duties on imports, a value-added tax, and a uniform percentage that is levied on the gross national income of each member nation. The latter was intended to be used as a balancing system only, but it has grown to become the most significant source of revenue for the EU-28.

4. The European Union sometimes lacks transparency.
Every eligible adult living in the EU is given the opportunity to vote on their representatives that go to the European Parliament. When these elections were held in 2014, it became the largest transnational election ever held in history. Each member nation sets the rules about how, where, and when to vote. The number of representatives permitted is based on the population size of each country. Malta currently receives six, whereas Germany receives 96. Although there is some control over who rules over Europe with this process, there isn’t the same levels of transparency on the executive layer of the administration.

5. It often requires currency support to maintain stable politics in the region.
Part of the global recession experienced in 2007-2009 occurred because there were multiple nations requiring currency support in the European Union. Although the trading bloc is making a push to turn the euro into a global currency, the nations that fall outside of the eurozone, along with the economic influences being pushed by the United States under the Trump Administration, make issues of austerity become more prevalent than they were in Greece and Cyprus in recent years.

Greece finally emerged from their eurozone bailout after spending years in austerity, creating high levels of demands on local households that saw unemployment reach as high 27%. Cyprus seized assets in individual bank accounts in 2013, taking up to 40% of the value that was present in some instances. Without these controversial actions, the economic stability of the European Union could have been brought into question.

6. The European Union can prevent national governments from acting on some issues.
Even though national governments still have authority over local concerns, they do not always receive financial or political support to meet unusual needs. Germany experienced this issue first-hand during the refugee resettlement process that happened during 2013-2014. More than 1 million people eventually came to their country, creating tens of billions of euros in costs that were unexpected. The European Union only provided EUR 6 billion in response to help build facilities, provide aid, and offer care despite numerous requests for more help. That means there are times when the EU wants members to provide financial support, but then is unwilling to offer it in return.

The current pros and cons of the European Union prove that when diverse cultures come together, it becomes possible to create strength. NATO set the stage for the success of the EU by proving people can work together for the greater good. Although there are still numerous challenges to face in the future of this economic bloc, including the uncertainty around Britain’s future in it, the fact that each nation can grow locally, become an international influence, and have support from its neighbors makes this a relationship that helps everyone in some way each day.

Servant leadership is based on a simple concept: that as an employee, a worker is present to serve the organization. As one moves up higher into leadership, then there are more people to serve.

That goes against the thinking that there are more people to serve the leader when they reach an executive status.

Here are the pros and cons to consider when implementing an environment which includes servant leadership.

List of the Pros of Servant Leadership

1. Decisions are based on the benefit of all.
Instead of having corporate decisions made in a way that benefits the leadership team, servant leadership includes the entire organization. A decision should be made in the best interest of everyone working for the company.

2. It encourages empathy.
When leaders make decisions in this kind of environment, they do so by looking at the situation in the shoes of others. That allows leaders to refuse requests if it doesn’t benefit everyone for some reason.

3. People grow in a servant leadership environment.
This type of environment encourages people to work together for their mutual benefit. It creates diversity within the workplace that helps everyone through the lens of different perspectives.

4. It serves the customer.
When people serve the organization over their own needs, the customer wins too.

List of the Cons of Servant Leadership

1. Decisions take longer to be made.
Because a decision must benefit all instead of some, a corporation can get bogged down in research or different perspectives. This slows down the implementation process and could be costly from a revenue standpoint.

2. It may require retraining.
Servant leadership is not how many supervisors, managers, and executives learned how to think. An organization wanting to implement this type of environment will often need to spend time and money retraining their personnel in how to think in such a way.

3. The role of the leader is lessened.
As a servant leader, there is a required to do what your staff asks of you if it is for the benefit of the company. The only time it is appropriate to refuse is when it is deemed that a request is self-serving. That can cause many leaders to work harder and longer hours in a support role instead of a leadership role.

These servant leadership pros and cons show us that it is possible to help a company grow and succeed by placing others first. The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few, which is a perspective that can take some getting used to from an individual perspective.

There are numerous research methods used to determine if theories, ideas, or even products have validity in a market or community. One of the most common options utilized today is experimental research. Its popularity is due to the fact that it becomes possible to take complete control over a single variable while conducting the research efforts. This process makes it possible to manipulate the other variables involved to determine the validity of an idea or the value of what is being proposed.

Outcomes through experimental research come through a process of administration and monitoring. This structure makes it possible for researchers to determine the genuine impact of what is under observation. It is a process which creates outcomes with a high degree of accuracy in almost any field.

The conclusion can then offer a final value potential to consider, making it possible to know if a continued pursuit of the information is profitable in some way.

The pros and cons of experimental research show that this process is highly efficient, creating data points for evaluation with speed and regularity. It is also an option that can be manipulated easily when researchers want their work to draw specific conclusions.

List of the Pros of Experimental Research

1. Experimental research offers the highest levels of control.
The procedures involved with experimental research make it possible to isolate specific variables within virtually any topic. This advantage makes it possible to determine if outcomes are viable. Variables are controllable on their own or in combination with others to determine what can happen when each scenario is brought to a conclusion. It is a benefit which applies to ideas, theories, and products, offering a significant advantage when accurate results or metrics are necessary for progress.

2. Experimental research is useful in every industry and subject.
Since experimental research offers higher levels of control than other methods which are available, it offers results which provide higher levels of relevance and specificity. The outcomes that are possible come with superior consistency as well. It is useful in a variety of situations which can help everyone involved to see the value of their work before they must implement a series of events.

3. Experimental research replicates natural settings with significant speed benefits.
This form of research makes it possible to replicate specific environmental settings within the controls of a laboratory setting. This structure makes it possible for the experiments to replicate variables that would require a significant time investment otherwise. It is a process which gives the researchers involved an opportunity to seize significant control over the extraneous variables which may occur, creating limits on the unpredictability of elements that are unknown or unexpected when driving toward results.

4. Experimental research offers results which can occur repetitively.
The reason that experimental research is such an effective tool is that it produces a specific set of results from documented steps that anyone can follow. Researchers can duplicate the variables used during the work, then control the variables in the same way to create an exact outcome that duplicates the first one. This process makes it possible to validate scientific discoveries, understand the effectiveness of a program, or provide evidence that products address consumer pain points in beneficial ways.

5. Experimental research offers conclusions which are specific.
Thanks to the high levels of control which are available through experimental research, the results which occur through this process are usually relevant and specific. Researchers an determine failure, success, or some other specific outcome because of the data points which become available from their work. That is why it is easier to take an idea of any type to the next level with the information that becomes available through this process. There is always a need to bring an outcome to its natural conclusion during variable manipulation to collect the desired data.

6. Experimental research works with other methods too.
You can use experimental research with other methods to ensure that the data received from this process is as accurate as possible. The results that researchers obtain must be able to stand on their own for verification to have findings which are valid. This combination of factors makes it possible to become ultra-specific with the information being received through these studies while offering new ideas to other research formats simultaneously.

7. Experimental research allows for the determination of cause-and-effect.
Because researchers can manipulate variables when performing experimental research, it becomes possible to look for the different cause-and-effect relationships which may exist when pursuing a new thought. This process allows the parties involved to dig deeply into the possibilities which are present, demonstrating whatever specific benefits are possible when outcomes are reached. It is a structure which seeks to understand the specific details of each situation as a way to create results.

List of the Cons of Experimental Research

1. Experimental research suffers from the potential of human errors.
Experimental research requires those involved to maintain specific levels of variable control to create meaningful results. This process comes with a high risk of experiencing an error at some stage of the process when compared to other options that may be available. When this issue goes unnoticed as the results become transferable, the data it creates will reflect a misunderstanding of the issue under observation. It is a disadvantage which could eliminate the value of any information that develops from this process.

2. Experimental research is a time-consuming process to endure.
Experimental research must isolate each possible variable when a subject matter is being studied. Then it must conduct testing on each element under consideration until a resolution becomes possible, which then requires data collection to occur. This process must continue to repeat itself for any findings to be valid from the effort. Then combinations of variables must go through evaluation in the same manner. It is a field of research that sometimes costs more than the potential benefits or profits that are achievable when a favorable outcome is eventually reached.

3. Experimental research creates unrealistic situations that still receive validity.
The controls which are necessary when performing experimental research increase the risks of the data becoming inaccurate or corrupted over time. It will still seem authentic to the researchers involved because they may not see that a variable is an unrealistic situation. The variables can skew in a specific direction if the information shifts in a certain direction through the efforts of the researchers involved. The research environment can also be extremely different than real-life circumstances, which can invalidate the value of the findings.

4. Experimental research struggles to measure human responses.
People experience stress in uncountable ways during the average day. Personal drama, political arguments, and workplace deadlines can influence the data that researchers collect when measuring human response tendencies. What happens inside of a controlled situation is not always what happens in real-life scenarios. That is why this method is not the correct choice to use in group or individual settings where a human response requires measurement.

5. Experimental research does not always create an objective view.
Objective research is necessary for it to provide effective results. When researchers have permission to manipulate variables in whatever way they choose, then the process increases the risk of a personal bias, unconscious or otherwise, influencing the results which are eventually obtained. People can shift their focus because they become uncomfortable, are aroused by the event, or want to manipulate the results for their personal agenda. Data samples are therefore only a reflection of that one group instead of offering data across an entire demographic.

6. Experimental research can experience influences from real-time events.
The issue with human error in experimental research often involves the researchers conducting the work, but it can also impact the people being studied as well. Numerous outside variables can impact responses or outcomes without the knowledge of researchers. External triggers, such as the environment, political stress, or physical attraction can alter a person’s regular perspective without it being apparent. Internal triggers, such as claustrophobia or social interactions, can alter responses as well. It is challenging to know if the data collected through this process offers an element of honesty.

7. Experimental research cannot always control all of the variables.
Although experimental research attempts to control every variable or combination that is possible, laboratory settings cannot reach this limitation in every circumstance. If data must be collected in a natural setting, then the risk of inaccurate information rises. Some research efforts place an emphasis on one set of variables over another because of a perceived level of importance. That is why it becomes virtually impossible in some situations to apply obtained results to the overall population. Groups are not always comparable, even if this process provides for more significant transferability than other methods of research.

8. Experimental research does not always seek to find explanations.
The goal of experimental research is to answer questions that people may have when evaluating specific data points. There is no concern given to the reason why specific outcomes are achievable through this system. When you are working in a world of black-and-white where something works or it does not, there are many shades of gray in-between these two colors where additional information is waiting to be discovered. This method ignores that information, settling for whatever answers are found along the extremes instead.

9. Experimental research does not make exceptions for ethical or moral violations.
One of the most significant disadvantages of experimental research is that it does not take the ethical or moral violations that some variables may create out of the situation. Some variables cannot be manipulated in ways that are safe for people, the environment, or even the society as a whole. When researchers encounter this situation, they must either transfer their data points to another method, continue on to produce incomplete results, fabricate results, or set their personal convictions aside to work on the variable anyway.

10. Experimental research may offer results which apply to only one situation.
Although one of the advantages of experimental research is that it allows for duplication by others to obtain the same results, this is not always the case in every situation. There are results that this method can find which may only apply to that specific situation. If this process is used to determine highly detailed data points which require unique circumstances to obtain, then future researchers may find that result replication is challenging to obtain.

These experimental research pros and cons offer a useful system that can help determine the validity of an idea in any industry. The only way to achieve this advantage is to place tight controls over the process, and then reduce any potential for bias within the system to appear. This makes it possible to determine if a new idea of any type offers current or future value.

When we look at the quality of food that is available to us, especially if you live in the United States, then it might seem like one product is the same as the other. Because of the factory farming processes involved in agricultural production, this philosophy is not always the case. How and where your food is raised can have a significant difference in its nutritional quality, flavor, and price.

Factory farming works on the principles of scale. On the typical operational site, raising livestock takes on the characteristics of industrial factory production. The animals are raised together in significant numbers in the smallest amount of space possible to maximize profits. It is a processing system that takes each creature from birth to death in the most efficient way possible from a food production standpoint.

It is a model that based itself on the concepts of the industrial revolution. When automation made it possible to do more on a farm with less labor, then it pushed many family operations out of business.

There are several factory farming pros and cons to evaluate when looking at the processes involved in food production.

List of the Pros of Factory Farming

1. Factory farming creates an inexpensive food resource for us.
The amount of money that households spend on food in the United States is lower today than arguably at any other point in history. Families at the turn of the 20th century were spending 40% of their income on their food needs. After World War II, that figure dropped by 10 percentage points. The typical family today spends roughly 10% of their wages on their food needs, which equates to roughly $6,000. This reduction is possible in part because of the economies of scale available in factory farming.

2. Factory farming allows workers to be more efficient.
One of the most significant challenges in agricultural work is the manual labor required to produce usable products. Because factory farming focuses on automation, modern technologies make it possible for farmers to create higher yields with fewer work requirements. Although there is a cost investment to consider with this upgrade, the profits that are possible on the same amount of land can provide financial security for everyone involved.

3. Factory farming creates an efficient process of production.
The goal of a factory farm is to create the highest profit margin possible. There is only one way to accomplish this: by improving the quality of products offered while reducing expenses during the production cycle. This process uses less space than traditional farming methods, making it possible for more food to reach the market at a lower price for consumers. Then the higher yields make it possible for the farmer to make a greater profit because they are increasing their overall productivity.

4. Factory farming reduces the amount of time it takes to bring a product to the market.
Since the influence of factory farming, the amount of time it takes for food products to make it to grocery store shelves has decreased dramatically. Chickens that once took 70 days to mature for processing can now make it to the butcher in 40 days (and sometimes less). Reductions in the time it takes to bring other animal proteins to the market for sale have decreased as well. This process creates more turnover for the farmer, which can eventually lead to higher profits throughout the year.

5. Factory farming gives us a better variety of foods for home consumption.
Because the price of food has dropped at the same time the median income for families increased, it became possible for many households to expand the variety of items in their pantry. This process allows for a better daily nutritional profile because of the availability of different food groups. Factory farming also makes it possible to make changes during each production cycle that can improve the quality of each item going to the market as well.

6. Factory farming creates employment opportunities.
Although factory farming does rely on automation to create profits, there are still numerous job opportunities available because of this industry. The average salary of a general laborer who is working in this field in the United States is roughly $12 per hour. Workers who are in a management role can earn upwards of $18 per hour. If a farmer can transition their land into this production format, then they can easily earn millions of dollars more than they would using traditional farming techniques.

7. Factory farming can occur almost anywhere.
Assuming that there is water access to the property, it is possible for a factory farm to be placed almost there anywhere in the world today. Thanks to the availability of fertilizers, construction techniques, and animal management processes, there are numerous opportunities to get involved with this industry today. Even if the outdoor conditions are not well-suited for livestock production, an artificial environment established indoors can still create profitable conditions for a factory farm.

8. Factory farming allows us to reduce food waste with responsible management.
The shelf life of many food products improves because of the process is implemented by the factory farming industry. Even though some facilities do not follow the best practices for animal care and management, the results that we see at the grocery store allow us to maximize consumption and minimize waste. The average food product coming from this part of the supply chain can last between 3 to 7 days longer when compared to traditional items.

9. Factory farming supports the local economy.
American Express estimates that about 70% of the money that is spent locally gets reinvested in the community. Factory farms will often work with local suppliers for their feed and irrigation requirements. The land upon which they operate generates property taxes that confined schools and local social programs. Sales of their products at the local level provide indirect employment opportunities all through the downstream process. All it takes is one business following these principles to generate potential millions in economic benefits.

List of the Cons of Factory Farming

1. Factory farms will often slaughter animals that are sick to produce food.
According to OrganicConsumers.org, up to 80% of the pigs and hogs which go to slaughter from factory farms have serious health conditions which may never receive treatment. There are dangerous gases produced by manure on these farms, such as methane and ammonia, that can cause the development of pneumonia in these animals. Because the health issues do not require disclosure at the retail level, it is impossible to know where your food comes from unless you source it directly.

2. Factory farms will keep animals in spaces that are too small for their health.
Although there are reforms taking place that are putting an end to this disadvantage, it is still an issue that must come under consideration until it is completely abolished. It is possible for an organization in this industry to keep chickens in a floor space that is smaller than the average tablet. That means there is no room for the bird to turn around, stretch their wings, or have meaningful movement. They spend their lives on mesh flooring that can damage their feet. This process even creates higher fat content in the chicken meat we consume.

3. Factory farms increases production levels unnaturally for livestock.
Because factory farms focus on the production process to create efficiencies, animals are often crossbred to produce faster growth results. This process may be combined with the use of weight gaining drugs in the feed to force faster production. Some animals are reaching their desired weight for slaughter three times quicker today than they were just a generation ago when these techniques were not readily used.

These animals are even reaching the necessary wait on last food, going from 3 pounds of feed to 1.7 pounds in less than 50 years.

4. Factory farms are aggressive with their dairy production needs.
FarmSanctuary.org reports that the factory farming process for dairy cattle considers a milk-producing cow to be spent after just three lactation cycles. The natural lifespan for most cattle breeds that produce milk at commercial levels is at least 20 years. This industry aggressively feeds and breeds the animals to produce as much milk as possible. Hormones and stimulants are sometimes used when it is legal as well. The reason why this is done is simple: profit. Organizations receive more money to send a younger crowd to slaughter than continuing to produce dairy products.

5. Factory farms sometimes use forced molting to increase egg production.
For the average farmer not using industry techniques, their hens will lay an average of one egg per day after they go through the molting process. Factory farming seeks to double that production by forcing them into another cycle. They do this by placing the chicken in a dark environment for up to eight hours without access to food or water. Up to 10% of hens die from this process even though some in the industry consider it to be a best practice.

6. Factory farms use genetic manipulation to their advantage.
The efficiencies of a factory farm focus on economies of scale. That means they are trying to produce more food products at a cheaper price. This emphasis has led to genetic manipulations that adversely impact an entire species at times. Broiler chickens are excellent example of this outcome. 90% of the birds that are grown for this purpose are unable to walk correctly because their skeletal system and muscle mass cannot cope with the weight involved.

7. Factory farms often separate the offspring from their parent.
There is a brutal reality in the food industry today. We sometimes eat baby animals. If you prefer veal or lamb, then this is a product that you eat. The reality of factory farms is that these food products become available only when the calves or lambs are taken away from their parents to put on weight at a separate facility during their short lives in the name of profit. Piglets are weaned as soon as 14 days after birth to encourage another pregnancy cycle as soon as possible.

8. Factory farms do not always focus on veterinary care.
It seems that a majority of welfare-minded veterinarians are post to the practices of factory farming. Because there is an oath that veterinarians take when they begin their practice, it can prevent some from servicing a farm in their area. Even when vets will make a house call, they do so as a way to try to prevent animal suffering. Some farmers following industry practices will opt for a different solution, providing antibiotics to the animal as a way to proactively stop them from becoming sick.

9. Factory farms do not allow animals to express their natural behaviors.
The ASPCA reports that up to 99% of the farmed animals in the United States are unable to exhibit their natural behaviors because of the industry practices of factory farming. Hogs and pigs like to lounge in the sunshine, root through the mud, and create complex social structures. If they are in a factory farm, then there is an excellent chance that they will be kept in a small concrete pan for their entire life. Cattle love to graze in pastures, but they are confined to small yards with hay and grain as a substitute. Some only have the option to sit or stand.

10. Factory farming contributes to global warming.
The overall impact of greenhouse gas production from farming activities is minimal compared to other industries. What we must consider as a disadvantage here is the fact that factory farms are responsible for the majority of the emissions that occur from agricultural activities around the world. Roughly 6% of GHG production in the United States comes from the agricultural sector. Over 90% of what reaches the atmosphere each year is due to the processes of scale that are involved in factory farming.

11. Factory farming can encourage soil erosion.
As the World Future Council notes, the soil erosion issues caused by agricultural activities is a significant ecological concern. When soil lacks the same ability to absorb carbon, then this creates an indirect contribution to the potential issue of global warming as well. Factory farms will often use livestock as a way to generate profits without taking advantage of the natural resources of the land. This process results in this unique disadvantage in many instances.

The pros and cons of factory farming come down to this fact: 94% of Americans agree that any animal raised for food deserves to live a life that is free from cruelty and abuse. Over 95% of farm animals in the United States are raised by this industry, which creates a higher risk for an abusive out a come to occur. That’s not to say that every farming organization follows only the negatives discussed above. It does mean that we must be conscious with the foods we choose at the store to encourage healthy practices.

People are living lives that seem busier than ever before. We are getting up early, staying up late, and working longer hours than arguably ever in history. Although some countries are looking at ways to reduce the number of hours people are working, the United States keeps seeing a slow, but steady increase in work responsibilities in several industries.

That means many families are relying on products from the fast food industry to take care of their meals on a regular basis. It is easier to grab something that is served to you in 10 minutes or less then it is to come home when you are tired to cook a meal.

The global fast food industry generates over $570 billion in revenues each year. That amount is larger than what some of the economies are in some of the smaller countries on our planet. About 40% of the market in this industry goes to the United States. There are over 200,000 quick service restaurants in the U.S. and 50 million people are eating at them at least once per day.

There are several advantages to consider when looking at the fast food industry, but there are also disadvantages that we must look at before deciding that a QSR meal is the right choice to make. That’s why these fast food pros and cons are crucial to review.

List of the Pros of Fast Food

1. The fast food industry is a significant employer in the United States.
Over 4 million people have jobs because of the fast food industry in the United States. Even though surveys consistently estimate that individuals are trying to cut back on the habit of eating at these restaurants, they are still experiencing consistent growth. Over 200,000 new jobs were added in 2015 alone.

2. The fast food industry provides affordable meals.
The average cost of a meal at a fast food industry location is exceptionally affordable in most locations. An individual can choose a combo meal from some of today’s industry leaders for under five dollars. Top brands like McDonald’s and Burger King offer value meals and menu items that can have you pay less than $2 for some food products. If you were to visit a grocery store for a grab-and-go item, you might be lucky to come out of there with a candy bar. A cheap burger looks like a healthier alternative from that perspective.

3. The fast food industry makes it easy for busy families to reach their calorie needs.
The fast food industry is one of the most affordable ways to obtain calories for families right now. If you were to go to your local grocery store, you might be able to achieve 40 calories for each dollar that you spend on healthy food items. It may be even lower if you focus on produce items for your shopping.

If you were to order a cheeseburger off of the value menu from your favorite fast food brand, you could achieve up to 300 calories for the same investment. You can order healthier options, like a salad, and still come out over 30 calories more per dollar than you can with grab-and-go items from supermarkets.

4. The fast food industry is extremely convenient.
When you are tired after a long day at work, then the last thing on your mind is cooking dinner for everyone. The same principle holds true when evaluating lunch options at work. The convenience of the fast food industry cannot be overstated. If you walk into a QSR location, then there is an excellent chance you will have food to eat in five minutes or less. There are drive-thru options available at many locations as well, making it possible to pull up and order before heading home to eat with the family. Unlike other food options, there isn’t a surcharge for these benefits.

5. The fast food industry offers healthy food options.
There are some healthy eating options available in the fast food industry if you know where to look. Kentucky Fried Chicken offers one of the best deals for this advantage, providing a grilled chicken breast that gives you only 180 calories and 6g of fat. You can add a serving of mashed potatoes and corn on the cob for under 100 calories for each item. Skip the biscuit and the gravy to have a meal that doesn’t feel like it will clog your arteries.

Most industry brands will offer a low-calorie sandwich, salad, or fruit item that will help you keep your calorie counts down while still enjoying the convenience of this industry.

6. The fast food industry offers experience consistency.
Many of the fast food locations that are available in the United States (and even around the world) are based on a franchise model. These businesses have independent owners and operators, but they are also required to follow a specific model when offering foods and interacting with their customers. If you walk into a Burger King in California, then there is a reasonable expectation that you will receive a similar experience when you visit a franchise in Florida. You can depend on specific standards of quality, which is a tremendous benefit if you are traveling somewhere.

7. The fast food industry offers entrepreneurial opportunities.
Wendy’s offers one of the best franchise options in the fast food industry today. Although you will need at least $2 million in liquid assets and a minimum net worth of $5 million, you can obtain a franchise with this group for just $40,000. You will pay a royalty fee of 4%, and then advertising fee of 4%, with the rest of the profits going to the independent owner and operator. If you choose a brand like Dominos pizza, there is even a possibility of receiving a franchise without a fee at all.

List of the Cons of Fast Food

1. The fast food industry is more expensive than the average home-cooked meal.
If you know how to shop intelligently at the grocery store, then you can serve meals at home for as little as two dollars per person. When you visit a location in the fast food industry, then you are going to spend an average of $4.50 per person. That means the average family of four in the United States can save roughly $500 each year if they choose to eat at home one more time per week then they do right now. Although there are affordable options on the menu, most people order value meals or combinations that increase their price.

2. The fast food industry serves products that could be dangerous to your health.
Eating processed foods and menu items from the fast food industry is often advertised as a fast way to satisfy your hunger. Although there is a certain truth to this observation, there are some specific risks to consider if you choose to eat at QSR locations frequently.

• Public Health Journal reports that people who eat fast food items regularly are 51% more likely to experience depression compared to those who do not.
• The Journal of Adolescent Health reports that girls eating one serving of French fries per week during adolescence can increase their risk of breast cancer by 27%.
• Circulation published a study that found consumers who eat fast food just once each week can increase the risk of coronary heart disease by 20%. Eating items two or three times per week grows this risk to 50%.

There are additional physical symptoms to consider as well, including anxiety, mood swings, and brain fog.

3. The fast food industry offers products of questionable quality.
The fast food industry uses a variety of vendors and shipping processes to create the best quality of service possible at each location. Because many brands and locations are shifting toward the use of fresh foods, the quality that you may receive is dependent upon that restaurant’s ability to follow proper food handling procedures. Even if the best practices are being followed by the franchisee, it is up to you to watch how your food is prepared to determine if it meets your standards.

4. The fast food industry contributes to the obesity epidemic.
There are some people who would say that the fast food industry is only providing a service. It is the responsibility of each person to make healthy eating choices that benefit their health and their families. The fact remains that obesity in the United States is a problem that continues to grow – no pun intended. Over 1/3 of children above the age of six are classified as either overweight or obese by the medical provider. 2/3 of adults fit into the same category. Although a person must decide if convenience is what they want, there are addictive qualities to consider with industry products too.

CRC Health reports that there are scientists who believe that fast food items are just as addictive as heroin. Some people may even go through withdrawal symptoms if they are unable to access their favorite foods.

5. The fast food industry encourages a change in your eating habits.
Taco Bell encouraged consumers starting in 2006 to consider the chain as a fourth meal option. Their goal is simple: to encourage people to settle their late-night cravings for a snack with a menu item from one of their local locations. People are recognizing now more than ever that the marketing efforts from some fast food providers are changing the ways that they think about food. That is one reason that the Seattle Times reports that industry traffic is down 1.1% despite some gains from the industry’s top brands.

6. The fast food industry does not support alternative eating needs.
The most significant disadvantage for many families when looking at fast food options as a meal is a lack of special diet support. If you have a food sensitivity or an allergy, then you’re eating these foods at your own risk. Most locations post a warning that state there is no control over cross-contamination. Even if you are a vegetarian and choose a salad, there are not always guarantees that the menu item is free of animal products. Animal products may include lactic acid, gelatin, casein, lecithin, and stearic acid.

7. The fast food industry charges more for their healthy items.
If you want to get out of a fast food location for the best possible price, then a burger and fries is often the best option. The cost of healthy items is often comparable to what you would pay for a combo meal with most brands. If you want to purchase a fresh salad at Wendy’s, then you will pay up to $6.69 plus tax at most locations. That’s the same price as the Son of Baconator combo.

The pros and cons of fast food require us to evaluate our current lifestyle and habits. If we can make some time in our schedule to make healthy foods at home, then many of the disadvantages found above can begin to disappear. These products on their own are not necessarily harmful. When there is no moderation involved, then that is when they can become dangerous.

The definition of federalism is straightforward: it is the federal principle or system of government. Throughout history, it has been a political system where 2+ governments share authority over the same geographical area. Most of the democratic countries in the world today use this method of governing, including Australia, Canada, India, and the United States.

Even the European Union is an example of federalism.

The exact structures of each system can vary widely based on how the country sets up its governing process. In the EU, the members of the upper houses in the government are not elected or appointed, but they serve as delegates of their respective governments. For the United States, there are local, country, and state governing authorities which all have a unique set of laws and regulations for people to follow.

Some choose to use a central system of government that regulates the entire country. Others do not. Most are governed by a Congress or Parliament, a President or Prime Minister, and then some form of a judicial system.

There are several pros and cons of federalism to consider when looking at it as a political system.

List of the Pros of Federalism

1. Federalism provides a structure that diffuses governmental power.
Many forms of federalism look to create checks and balances throughout society as a way to create an equal governing process. By diffusing power to multiple branches of office, like the U.S. does with the executive, legislative, and judicial segments, it becomes more challenging for one division to take over the country. When power is not centralized in a government, then there are fewer issues with individual corruption that can impact the entire nation.

2. Federalism creates a protection against tyranny.
This form of government will also make it challenging for a single branch of government to obtain complete control over the structure. There is no way to obtain runaway power in this structure unless voters approve of that process first. Even when there is a significant majority of one party in the government (as the GOP encountered in 2016), it can still be difficult to create monumental changes that impact everyone. This process is one of the primary reasons why democratic countries choose this form over the other governing options which are available.

3. Federalism is an efficient process.
Because the U.S. provides some of the power to the states, it creates efficiencies in the governing system because delegation is possible. Local governments receive the right to begin solving some of their own problems. If this structure was not available, then you would get cookie-cutter regulations that may not apply to some geographical areas. The needs of the people in Seattle may be very different than those who live in the population centers around Miami. This structure allows each group to live in a way that maximizes their safety while minimizing effort.

4. Federalism increases the level of participation by individuals.
People become more involved with their government in a variety of ways when federalism is the structure in place. Elected officials are closer to what a citizen is than a state official under this structure, which means people can visit a local office to express their opinions without a fear of judgment. When we have a chance to embrace diversity as a culture, then it is an opportunity to draw upon each of our strengths to create something amazing. Other forms of government do not offer such an opportunity.

5. Federalism encourages a system of cooperation.
Different communities have unique requirements that they must meet to maximize their quality of life. Instead of mandating that everyone follows the same set of laws, this system allows each community to create a foundation that works the best for their needs. If you travel to almost any town, city, or village in the United States, then you will discover a different set of laws, rules, and regulations to follow. Many of them are similar, but there are also several which are not.

6. Federalism encourages innovation in governing.
Because this structure of government looks at cooperation and sharing as its primary structure, there is an opportunity to try a different set of policies to see how they will work. This process can create positive or negative results. A recent example in the United States of this advantage is the requirement to drug test working adults who receive welfare benefits. Some governments are trying it, while others or not. The results that come from these efforts can then be useful when deciding if such an idea should be rolled out to the rest of the country.

7. Federalism allows the government to become more responsive to individual needs.
When a government is closer to its citizens, then it can provide a responsive solution when there are citizen needs, emergency situations, or changes that are necessary in the structure of laws. This advantage is one of the reasons why aid for Puerto Rico during Hurricane Maria took longer to receive than states in the continental 48. The local governments could distribute resources first instead of relying on the national government like the island because of the availability of local resources.

List of the Cons of Federalism

1. Federalism often protects the will of the majority at any cost.
Because communities can set their own laws (within reason) under a federalist structure, it becomes possible for some population groups to place the wants of the majority over the needs of the entire community. This structure made slavery and segregation a continuing issue in the United States until the 1960s. It was partially responsible for the division in the 1800s that eventually led to the Civil War. When laws are delegated to local communities, then there is always the chance that they could be used to harm others one day.

2. Federalism can encourage the passing of ridiculous laws.
The structure of federalism encourages local communities to self-govern in the most efficient manner possible. This process is usually a healthy way to help keep households safe no matter where they are in the country. It can also be used as a way to pass ridiculous laws as a way to make a political statement, discourage tourism, or some other specific result. Here are just a few of the craziest laws you can find in the U.S. right now.

• It is illegal in Arizona for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub.
• If you go to Colorado, then it is illegal to keep a couch on your porch.
• You are not allowed to sell the hair of a dog or cat in Delaware.
• Hawaii made it against the law to place a coin in your ear.
• You cannot “drive” a horse in Indiana above a set speed limit of 10mph.

3. Federalism allows local governments to fight the national governments.
The local governments can decide to fight the existence of some specific national laws by going through the justice system of the country. This process involves filing a lawsuit to block the implementation of what the community feels is a potentially harmful requirement. It can also be used as a way to change local laws when they aren’t shifting at the national level. One of the most significant examples of this issue involves the legalization of recreational cannabis.

That’s not to say that all actions are a disadvantage. There are times when blocking the implementation of federal law is beneficial. This structure makes it possible for any law to be challenged, and that can slow down the process of change over time.

4. Federalism allows national governments to fight the local ones.
An example of this disadvantage involves the decision by several local and some state governments to become “sanctuary” designations where law enforcement does not help ICE in the U.S. with immigration detainment. The U.S. government threatened to pull funding from the cities choosing this action, and then filed suit against them in an effort to try getting compliance.

The structure of this government can create inefficiencies in the system because the national government might not like the way the local officials choose to oversee their communities. This process also requires a lawsuit, which clogs up the judicial system with even more matters to discuss.

5. Federalism can create oppositional competition.
Because each community can create their own set of laws and rules in a system of federalism (especially in the United States), then the structure can create unwanted competition for resources that seeks to limit some demographics. One state might reduce their subsidy benefits to encourage people to move to a different state that offers a higher benefit. Another government might offer a significant tax break to a company that encourages them to place offices in one location and not another.

6. Federalism can create uncertainty.
Because there are multiple layers of government working cooperatively with one another in a federalist system, it can be challenging at times for specific communities to know where they can receive assistance. There are natural disasters, national welfare aid distributed to the states for authorization, public education resources, and many more benefits or circumstances where someone must navigate each level of government to find the results they want. Knowing who is responsible for specific issues can make it difficult for any aid to make it to its intended destination.

7. Federalism can be inefficient.
There are efficiencies to consider with delegation that make this governing structure such an inviting option. Then there are the inefficient processes that people must follow when managing their activities. People must stay in compliance with the laws that are in every layer of governing. That means some people in the U.S. must follow four different sets of laws. Knowing what you can or cannot do can be a confusing process, especially when there are conflicting statements offered by the different parties.

8. Federalism can be structured to benefit only the rich.
Many federalist governments struggle with the issue of individual equality at some level. For the United States, it is the wage and wealth gaps to consider. The top 1% of income earners own a majority of the wealth increases experienced since 2009. Many women only make 80% for doing the same job that men do when they look at their salary. These structures can be challenging to change when there are some many obstacles that are put in the way thanks to the checks and balances of this system.

The pros and cons of federalism provide evidence that it is usually better for a society and nation if there is a system of power sharing available for the government. It creates checks and balances in a system that promote individual freedoms and self-governing at a higher level when compared to the other options which are possible. Although there are challenges to face in any type of government, most people who live in a federalist system say that they wouldn’t change the structure whatsoever.

Foreign aid occurs when the resources of one country are given to another nation as a way to provide supports of some type. Almost any type of resource can qualify as foreign aid, including money, materials, or labor.

Governments in the roughly 40 developed countries often provide foreign aid to the developing world as a way to improve resource access and boost the local economy. It is possible for anyone to contribute to this process, which means there are organizations and individuals who send resources to others overseas as well.

You might hear the terms “economic aid,” “international aid,” or “developmental aid” when discussing resource transfers with someone. Each option is another way to describe the processes of foreign aid.

There are two types which trade hands each year around the world: multilateral and bilateral.

Multilateral foreign aid is a collective action taken by several governments, organizations, or individuals to help a specific cause. The bilateral version is the direct giving of resources from one government to another.

The United States offers roughly $30 billion in foreign aid to almost every country in the world each year. Here are the crucial points to review when looking at this subject.

List of the Pros of Foreign Aid

1. Foreign aid benefits the domestic economy at the same time as the international one.
The issuance of foreign aid can take on several different forms. Governments can offer it as an outright gift or grant that does not require any repayment. Another option is to offer a low-interest loan that allows for a small window of profit to the gifting nation. One of the most population ways to issue this resource, however, is to have it come with what is called a “donor caveat.”

The donor nation offering the foreign aid can stipulate that a specific percentage of the goods, sometimes as high as 30%, be purchased by the recipient from their domestic providers. If the U.S. gave foreign aid to the Philippines with this rule, then they would need to purchase American goods at that percentage to qualify for the aid.

2. Foreign aid creates a stronger relationship for all the parties involved in the transaction.
An individual, business, or government can offer foreign aid to take advantage of this benefit. People often receive benefits when they give them to others. Even the U.S. receives foreign aid each year. It isn’t always a large gift, but it is still a meaningful gesture. The Masai of southern Kenya once gave Americans 14 cows after the attacks of 9/11 as a gesture of solidarity. When anyone is willing to give, the goodwill it creates can create a lifetime of positive memories. This process helps to make the world a smaller, more peaceful place.

3. Foreign aid can reduce the impact of poverty.
80% of the world’s population lives on a salary of $10 or less per day. There are states in the U.S. where the minimum wage per hour is higher than that. When the wealthy countries contribute some of their excess wealth to the poor nations of the world, then they can make a positive impact on poverty in that region. The amount given by Americans to the rest of the world is equal to what it would take to alleviate hunger right now. Imagine what could happen if the world’s 40 wealthiest countries got together for a multilateral grant, contributing $1 billion each annually, to improve food production and distribution systems. That’s the power of foreign aid.

4. Foreign aid provides economic opportunities for the giver and the recipient.
Countries that give foreign aid can receive economic benefits without having a donor caveat in place because of the stimulus effort it creates. From the improved international relationships to the increase in job opportunities, this process can form the foundation of trade talks, security agreements, and compacts of mutual aid. Although there is an initial expense that taxpayers must face when this gift is offered at first, it will also pay dividends for a long time after thanks to the impacts it creates.

5. Foreign aid encourages national independence.
Foreign aid helped many countries remain independent throughout the 19th century as another wave of colonization swept around the planet. It supplies resources of national security even today because the funds are useful in the war against terrorism. When the funds can also supply strength to weak institutions, prevent corruption in governments, encourage transparency, and fight poverty, then there are fewer opportunities for a hostile force to step in and try to take over the government.

6. Foreign aid can offer agricultural improvements.
The world’s top 3 food producers are China, India, and the United States. The U.S. is regularly the top food exporter globally, finishing second in total production most years. Chinese agricultural needs often remain domestic. India sometimes outproduces Americans on this front too, which is understandable considering the size of each population center. When these world leaders in this fundamental economic product teach others how to maximize their resources, it creates agricultural improvements that can reduce hunger permanently while creating a potential trading partner in the future.

7. Foreign aid allows countries to help others without direct interference.
The provision of foreign aid allows a government, business, or individual to offer financial support to others as a way to solve local problems without direct interference on their part that could destabilize the region. Many countries offer the developing world funds that work to stop serious diseases like ebola and AIDS, fight addiction, combat terrorism, or begin building necessary infrastructure items. The eventual goal is to help these countries develop enough resources that they can eventually support themselves and no longer require the foreign aid for survival.

8. Foreign aid doesn’t require a significant amount to create positive change.
The University of Pennsylvania conducted a research study that asked Americans how much they thought their country spent of foreign aid out of the annual budget. The average amount that people guessed was 26%. The actual amount is less than 1% each year. Because the value of currency is much higher than what most other nations who need foreign aid have with their own, a little bit of assistance can offer a lot of support for a family in need.

Haiti is an excellent example of this advantage. If you have 1 USD, then you can exchange that for roughly 80 Haitian Gourde. A family who receives a $20 donation in foreign aid can purchase new clothing, livestock, medicine, shoes, and food supplies and potentially still have cash left over for an emergency. That’s why the value of foreign aid is such a powerful economic generator.

List of the Cons of Foreign Aid

1. Foreign aid can increase local prices.
When foreign aid is offered at any left, the goal is to help that nation create their own resource chain that can be used to create the essentials of life: food, water, clothing, and shelter. Most markets operate on the basis of supply and demand. If you give people more money to spend, then you give them more access to resources. That lessens the local supply, which drives up prices. Even though there is no cost associated with the gift, the price inflation may never go away. This process creates a cycle where foreign aid can become constantly necessary.

2. Foreign aid benefits those who operate on an economy of scale.
When governments issue a contract for foreign aid provision, they are wanting to work with companies that can provide the most value for the investment offered to someone else. That means small providers can struggle to stay competitive for this domestic economic gain. Most of the work will go to the biggest companies that can provide the cheapest work. It becomes another example of how those who have money can make more of it, while those who do not must struggle to survive.

3. Foreign aid is sometimes offered as a political tool.
Hyeon-Jae Seo wrote this for the Harvard International Review in 2017 regarding foreign aid. “Aid is never as simple as one country providing resources for another – rather, it is often a highly complex political maneuver with a multitude of intertwined purposes resulting in varying degrees of impact and potentially harmful consequences.”

It is very easy for foreign aid offers to become political tools. Countries can withdraw their resources as a way to create changes that they want to see in the government. This impact can create the effect of a coup without ever setting foot in the country.

4. Foreign aid can be used as a method of global favoritism.
Although the United States offers foreign aid to over 180 different countries each year, there are only five nations that receive over $1 billion in direct aid each year. That figure is for cash grants, gifts, or loans that are handed out each year. One of the most significant recipients of U.S. foreign aid is Israel. Americans currently supply $3.8 billion each year to the country in military aid that does not qualify as “foreign” aid under budgetary classification.

The same issue can be found with aid given to Lebanon. Over $16 million in laser-guided rockets were given to the local military by the U.S. as a “firm and ready” commitment to the country in 2018.

5. Foreign aid is easily wasted, especially when it is not wanted.
Between 1971-1994, over $1 trillion in foreign aid was handed out by the United States to help the 70 poorest countries in the world. Numerous other governments supplied aid to the tune of hundreds of billions in funding as well. By 1996, the United Nations was forced to make the declaration that 43 out of the 70 countries were in a worse financial position than they were before they received their first gift. When the money is not wanted in the first place or invested in areas that create economic stability, then foreign aid becomes a trail of cash that creates dependencies.

6. Foreign aid does not create more peace in the world.
Between 1971-1994, Somalia received $6.2 billion in foreign aid from the United States and still ended up being under U.S. military occupation. Haiti received $3.1 billion and experienced the same result. There are several countries experienced warfare or economic chaos while receiving at least $3 billion in aid during that same period. Chad, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Zaire, Mozambique, Ethiopia, and Sudan are all on that list. The final three countries all received over $10 billion in foreign aid.

7. Foreign aid does not offer a guaranteed benefit.
Even though many countries will try to place donor caveats on the foreign aid they provide to others, there is not usually a system of accountability in place that allows officials to follow-up on where the money goes or how it is spent. The United States passed the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act in 2016 and there is no plan in place to create any oversight of the money that is headed to other countries. Even more problematic is the fact that the U.S. now has multiple data points to study because of the legislation.

As Representative Gerry Connolly (D-Virginia) told the press in January, “Let’s have uniform data so we’re all singing from the same hymnal. We could all make different conclusions about what that data means, but to have different sets of data… in no way is in the spirit of our bill.” When there is no accountability, then countries can spend the money on anything they want.

8. Foreign aid creates dependencies when not correctly managed.
Mozambique gets to make another appearance in the list of disadvantages of foreign aid. Ever since they started receiving assistance from the United States, the level of dependency as a percentage of their GDP rose by 16 percentage points in less than 20 years. Ghana saw an increase of 20 percentage points using the same measurement. When nearly half of a country’s budget comes from financial assistance provided by other nations, then they are no longer in a position to develop new resources. They will sit and wait for the next check to come their way.

9. Foreign aid can cause special interests to get involved with foreign governments.
Long-term foreign aid typically reduces the effectiveness of governing at the local level for the recipient. One of the primary reasons for this disadvantage is the fact that there are contractors and special interests involved in the process when non-money aid is offered to a foreign government.

It is in the domestic interest to maintain those relationships because it keeps money flowing through the company. Lobbying efforts form to keep elected officials renewing the aid packets to ensure the revenues keep coming in to support the company. It doesn’t take long for the foreign aid to become more about what it can do for businesses and special interests more than what it does for those who receive it.

10. Foreign aid can encourage conflict.
Countries in Africa who receive foreign aid are under the suspicion of creating conflict or prolonging its existence because the presence of violence brings more money into the country. There are times when this resource can offer stability to a country, but it should never be tied to a specific regime or structure. When that occurs, then it becomes advantageous for the recipient to remain unstable because that guarantees more access to free or low-cost resources without the need to offer anything in return.

11. Foreign aid reduces or eliminates market pricing.
When there are donor caveats in place for foreign aid, then the giver creates a market shift in the economy of the recipient. The cheaper, subsidized goods that the government must purchase to receive the aid makes it challenging for local producers to compete with that pricing. That leaves domestic companies with two choices: lower their prices to match or go out of business. Most choose the former instead of the latter, so it impacts the quality of life adversely because of the artificial competition in their marketplace.

12. Foreign aid doesn’t create wealth.
The purpose of foreign aid is to provide an option for survival. People and governments can experience a positive economic impact when its presence is available in society. What it does not offer is an opportunity to create wealth at the household level of society. It will not usually create a higher rate of savings or investment in the general population. There are even times when this resource creates lower levels of wealth because households focus on spending or see their currency devalued because of the artificial infusion of capital.

The pros and cons of foreign aid can be a tricky balancing act to navigate. On one hand, there is a natural desire to help other people and countries who find themselves in a disadvantaged position. On the other hand, there is the need for oversight and accountability that can put a rift in some international relationships. When we get it right, then incredible things can happen in our world. That’s why each

There is a subject matter in the world today where both sides of the debate treat the issue like a political hot potato. It is an issue where scientists on both sides are regularly challenged about their perspectives, and sometimes even called out personally for them. It is a debate where it seems like there is no common ground. We are either securing our energy future or we are destroying the world for our children.

The issue is fracking. This unconventional method of extracting crude oil, petroleum liquids, and natural gas from the ground creates hardcore support on both sides of the debate. One side will say that this technology is a modern miracle that makes affordable energy a reality for everyone on the planet. The other side will suggest that having cheaper fuel doesn’t matter if you don’t have a world that supports life.

When evaluating the fracking pros and cons that are available today, we must work to balance the extreme sides toward some middle ground. There are certainly some benefits to consider, as well as some risks, but the outcome is not a miracle or an apocalypse by any means.

List of the Pros of Fracking

1. Fracking does not impact water supplies when managed correctly.
The BBC reports that in the early days of fracking in the United States, it was quite common for the borehole to be improperly cased when drilling a hole to access the energy resources in the ground below. When this incident would occur, then it would become possible for the fracking fluid to escape into local aquifers. The EPA reports that no such incidents have caused lasting outcomes in 2011 testimony to Congress. When this work is done correctly, then there is little risk to the existing water supply. Most of the energy is underneath the groundwater table.

2. Fracking creates an outcome that is similar to the Earth’s natural responses.
One of the most significant concerns about fracking activities is the release of methane into the water or the atmosphere. Although releasing this gas from drilling will always be a concern, it is also notable that you can find pockets of the gas around the world even where there not be any recoverable fossil fuels. These areas carry a similar risk of groundwater contamination as the drilling activities do when the soil/water barrier is breached.

3. Fracking occurs underneath where the water-bearing rocks exist.
Most of the groundwater that we use for wells and municipal supplies is found within the first 1,000 feet of the surface. The depth of most shale deposits that the fracking industry accesses to create usable energy products are found between 6,000 to 10,000 feet beneath the surface. Since 1949, roughly 2 million fracking treatments have happened without a single documented case of the work causing a water aquifer to become polluted. Approximately 90% of all the gas wells drilled in the U.S. since then have been fracked.

4. Fracking can capture the greenhouse gas emissions.
No one argues about the risks that methane poses to the atmosphere or the water supply. New technologies that are being developed at MIT right now could help to harness the wasted gas into a usable product. It could become a fuel or a chemical feedstock when captured. Most of the wells will burn off the gas by flaring it before there is an escape into the atmosphere anyway, reducing the risks that are discussed in the potential disadvantages of fracking frequently.

There may be 150 billion cubic meters of the gas flared off each year across all industries, but it is simply a byproduct that is managed at the source.

5. Fracking reduces our reliance on coal resources for energy.
Although natural gas from fracking is not a perfect form of energy, it offers significant advantages when compared to the costs of coal. 42% of the mercury emissions that occur in the United States are because of activities of coal-fired power plants. It only takes 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury in a 25-acre lake to make any fish found there unsafe to eat. Over 45,000 pounds of mercury were emitted in 2014 alone.

Coal also produces sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter that contains cadmium, lead, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and arsenic. Many of these issues disappear thanks to the products offered through the fracking process.

6. Fracking uses very little water compared to other energy resources.
Although fracking may require up to 74,000 gallons of water to prepare well for energy release, the amount that the industry uses to produce energy is far less than what the competitive alternative resources require. When hydraulic fracturing is compared to coal mining, petroleum liquid extraction, or nuclear power, it uses 10 times less water to produce the same energy unit. The next time you fill up at the gas station and see the 10% ethanol sticker, remember that it took 1,000 times more water to produce the biofuel than it did to create the natural gas used in homes around the world.

7. Fracking does not require a permanent installation.
The process of fracking is not a permanent scar that affects property owners indefinitely. The wells are drilled to take advantage of the resources which are available underneath the ground. When the hydraulic fracturing work is complete, then many of the wells can operate independently with routine maintenance offered by inspectors. Although you can still see the structures on the land, the impact on the environment is minimal.

8. Fracking helps households save money.
There are several ways that fracking activities can help you to save money every day. The natural gas that is used for various power resources is cheaper because of hydraulic fracturing. You can benefit from the surge in tax revenues from drilling activities with lower property taxes, better school funding, or additional community projects. Roughly $8 billion in wages was paid in Colorado alone because of this industry. Even your public works and general infrastructure needs are financially supported because of what the fracking industry provides at all levels.

9. Fracking reduces the need for foreign oil and natural gas reliance.
Thanks to the benefits experienced by fracking activities, the United States is more independent today because there is a greater availability of fossil fuel products. Even though fuel prices do not always reflect this benefit, Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance told Fox News in 2018 that OPEC is becoming relatively irrelevant. “If OPEC is going to clamp back on their production in an attempt to control prices, they’re not going to be able to do it because the American producer will just produce more.”

10. Fracking uses natural materials to create an energy release.
The average well that is treated by the fracking process uses up to 97% natural products, usually fresh water and sand, to create the pressure needed to create results. A significant majority of the chemicals used in this process are items that are found in the home, such as sodium chloride or guar gum. Although there is understandable concern about companies not publishing their proprietary ingredient list, the Coloradoan reports that only one-third of the wells in Larimer County, Colorado actually contained a trade secret.

List of the Cons of Fracking

1. Fracking takes away funds from renewable energy.
If you were to compare the greenhouse gas emissions from coal consumption to what we obtain from natural gas use, then the latter would always win. It’s even cleaner than clean coal technologies! When you look at natural gas against renewable energy resources, there is no comparison. Although natural gas emits up to 60% less carbon dioxide during combustion, solar and wind hold a similar advantage over it. Funding fracking operations takes money away from what we could be using to develop cleaner energy technologies.

2. Fracking does not account for the methane release that occurs.
Many of the data resources that you can find online for fracking activities will discuss the greenhouse gas emissions released during combustion, but then fail to account for what occurs during the extraction process. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that methane leaks (and other fugitive emissions) contribute up to 9% of the total life cycle emissions from this process.

When methane escapes to the atmosphere, the impact it has on the global warming process is 34 times stronger than carbon dioxide when trapped over a century. If you take a 20-year measurement, then the result is 86 times stronger.

3. Fracking creates the potential for more fossil fuel consumption.
People follow a predictable trend of consumption. If an item is cheaper, then they will use more of it. Although fracking does create more energy resources that are affordable to the average household, this process encourages an increase in how much people use as well. There are fewer incentives to conserve, so more greenhouse gas emissions are released from the combustion process.

4. Fracking uses a proprietary blend of chemicals.
What is in fracking fluid? Although you can find well-by-well comparisons of what is in use, drillers are not required to publish their proprietary blend of chemicals for public review. What we do know is that many wells require the use of non-ionic surfactants to create the necessary impact for the hydraulic fracturing process to occur. This catch-all category contains numerous products like Naphthenic Acid Ethoxylate, which can adverse health effects when repeated exposures occur. About 20% of the chemicals used in fracking processes today fit into the “proprietary” label.

5. Fracking can have an adverse effect on property value.
Most fracking activities occur in the western states of the United States today. When you purchase property in these states, you are not always getting the rights to every element that is accessible from the land. You have gas and mineral rights, water rights, and land rights that can all be split from each other on the deed. That means if you don’t own the gas and mineral rights under your property, then someone else can purchase them and drill on your land without seeking your permission. If an active well is next to your home, how much do you think that property would sell for if you need to move?

6. Fracking creates exposure to benzene.
In the early days of fracking, some companies would drill horizontally next to water-bearing rocks as a way to try to save money. It is now considered a bad practice, but that shift in preference does not change the fact that benzene was released to some water supplies. When people are exposed to this agent, then it has the potential to cause cancer. It has been found in underground water supplies where this type of drilling action occurred.

7. Fracking activities can sometimes cause earthquakes.
The evidence is mounting that hydraulic fracturing activities in the United States are leading to a significant rise in surface earthquakes. Many of these events occur in places where there are not any known faults that should cause such a tremor. Between the 1960s and the year 2000, about 21 of these quakes occurred in the Midwestern states of the U.S., all registering 3.0 or less on the Richter scale. Since then, the average has climbed to 188 per year. There were over 1,000 registered in 2015. Then Oklahoma experienced a 5.6 earthquake in 2016 that was believed to be linked to this industry.

8. Fracking reduces our ability to innovate.
When we invest in fracking technologies, then we are creating a potential future where affordable access to natural gas and petroleum liquids remains possible. The interesting fact about fossil fuels is that they are by nature a finite product. Even though it may take decades for us to run out of them, this possibility always exists. We must also send money toward the development of synthetic and renewable fuels that don’t require fracking activities to ensure that future generations will always have access to the energy they require.

9. Fracking can use a lot of water to prepare a well for extraction.
Although the drilling process for hydraulic fracturing may only require 74,000 gallons of water to initiate, that figure does not include the various other water resources that are necessary to perform a proper extraction. The average well in the United States can use over 30 million gallons of water over its lifetime. Our planet might be roughly 71% water, but 97% of it is salty and not useful for drinking without processing. Only 3% is fresh water, and 0.62% of it exists as groundwater. Using this resource for energy extraction may not be the best use of the resource for some communities.

The pros and cons of fracking must balance the health and welfare of our planet, countries, and neighborhoods with our need to have affordable energy solutions. If there is a way to safely remove natural gas and other fossil fuels, then it makes sense to pursue this method. If the health consequences continue to be a threat with fracking, then alternative solutions may need to be developed to meet our current and future requirements.

Free trade agreements are treaties which regulated the duties, taxes, and tariffs which countries impose on the imports they receive or exports that are sent. Numerous treaties exist which follow this process, with one of the most lucrative being the North American Free Trade Agreement that was recently renegotiated to become the United States, Canada, and Mexico Agreement.

When such an agreement is in place between 2+ countries, then they are able to move goods and services with more freedom across borders. This structure creates economic opportunities for all the parties involved, including a chance for workers to immigrate with fewer restrictions to take advantage of better jobs that may be available to them.

There are always significant advantages and disadvantages to consider with any contractual arrangement, so here are the pros and cons of free trade to consider.

List of the Pros of Free Trade

1. Free trade increases economic growth for each country.
In the United States, the economy grew at roughly 0.5% more during the 25 years that NAFTA was in place compared to what it would’ve been if the free trade in North America had remain the same. Mexico experienced an increase in job opportunities from the free trade arrangement, while Canada was able to increase its export opportunities to its neighbors from the south. Although the countries were already exchanging $1 trillion in goods and services before the agreement, this volume expanded by over 125% after it went into effect.

2. It offers a more attractive business climate to organizations.
Businesses are often protected when countries are trading with one another frequently. When there is a free trade agreement in place, then these protections begin to disappear. This process creates more of a free market environment where companies are forced to look for new ways to innovate as a way to stay competitive in the marketplace. Instead of allowing for stagnation to occur because there is always a guaranteed income, governments pursuing free trade increase economic opportunities because they inspire new processes.

3. Free trade will usually lower government spending habits.
One of the ways that a government works to protect its local industry segments is through the use of subsidies. These benefits may include tax incentives, monetary rebates, protective tariffs, and other market manipulations which allow the corporation to function closer to a monopoly then if it were forced to compete on a global stage. Free trade lowers the expenses that for which a government must budget because companies no longer require the same protections. They can become competitive in multiple markets all at once. This spending on protectionism can then be applied to other societal needs.

4. It offers consumers access to a higher level of expertise.
When companies are operating in international affairs, they have more access to information. This data allows them to create more effective best practices that will eventually help them to save money because they can cut the costs of their overhead. With the presence of free trade in the economy, these organizations can then provide access to their experience by working with domestic providers who are serving local households. That makes it possible for everyone to benefit from the expanded trade opportunities.

5. Free trade can improve the safety of workers.
When companies are reviewing their best practices, then there are several sectors that they review for improvements. Employee safety is usually one of the first beneficiaries of a free trade agreement. This outcome is especially relevant when considering the manufacturing, mining, and oil producing industries. When workers can stay safe on the job, then they can remain productive, helping each organization to eventually improve its bottom line.

6. It allows for companies to transfer technologies to one another.
When there is a free trade agreement in place, then the multinational companies make it possible for local organizations to receive access to the latest technologies from their industry. This process makes it possible for the local economy to start growing, which means there are additional job opportunities that begin to develop. The transnational corporations can even help provide training at the domestic level as a way to provide experience to future workers who may want to reach out to the global community one day.

7. Free trade results in higher levels of foreign direct investment.
When there are fewer restrictions in place for companies who want to do business overseas, then domestic organizations and local communities benefit from a higher level of foreign direct investment. These funds help to add capital as local industries begin to look at the potential for expansion efforts. It is also a way to boost the influence that domestic businesses have within the region.

From the perspective of the United States, this advantage of free trade makes it possible to provide a currency of value (namely the U.S. dollar) to developing countries that would normally stay isolated without an agreement in place.

8. It can provide a direct economic boost to border communities.
When there is a land border between two countries that have a free trade agreement, then the import/export transactions for the two governments occur at the ports of call which exist along this line. This structure has a positive effect on both local economies almost immediately. During the first year of NAFTA, the apparel and metal industries in Texas saw 13% growth because of the number of additional exports that were going across the border to Mexico.

List of the Cons of Free Trade

1. It reduces the tax revenues that are available to the government.
A free trade agreement creates a shift in how value enters the society. Before there is an implementation of this contract type, goods and services develop revenues for the government through the use of tariffs and fees. Once this agreement goes into effect, then the money flows to the corporations instead. It then becomes the government’s responsibility to collect taxes from the profits and revenues earned from the new structure. That is why many smaller countries try to avoid free trade. They often struggle to replace the revenues that import tariffs and miscellaneous fees generate for them.

2. Free trade can reduce the influence of native cultures.
As free trade begins to move into the isolated areas of a country, the indigenous cultures which are present there can sometimes struggle to adapt to the changing realities. There may be a need to access the resources which are available locally to these tribes for the “greater good” of the rest of the country. If the decision is made to pursue this need, then it is not unusual for local communities to be uprooted. Their exposure to new population groups can then result in disease, suffering, and even death in extreme circumstances.

3. It can begin to degrade the value of domestic natural resources.
Countries that have already gone through their industrial revolution will typically have fewer natural resources available to them when compared to the developing world. That creates the purpose of pursuing a free trade agreement in the first place. These emerging market countries do not have the same environmental protections in place because they have not experienced the same pollution challenges as the developed world.

That is why free trade agreements can often lead to the depletion of natural resources through mining, timber operations, and mineral extraction. It does not take long for the fields and jungles of a developing country to be reduced to wasteland because of strip-mining and deforestation efforts.

4. Free trade can encourage poor working conditions.
The minimum monthly wage for garment workers in the United States in 2017 was $1,864. If a free trade agreement was created with the countries of Southeast Asia, then corporations could take advantage of the lower minimum monthly wage in Bangladesh. Companies were required to pay their workers a minimum salary of $197 per month. Now imagine that you have 10,000 workers who are producing apparel items for you. Where would it be cheaper to manufacture your items?

The issue is more than one of wages. It is also a concern about working conditions. The developing world does not have the same protections in place for workers. Some locations do not even have restrictions on youth labor. Although a free trade agreement can encourage local development that improves this issue, there is no guarantee that it will happen.

5. It can eliminate the presence of domestic industries.
When there is a multinational company trying to do business in a local community, then the mom-and-pop shops have no way to compete. That is because the organizations which are involved in multiple markets can operate on a larger scale than small domestic businesses. Even though the giants of each industry work with small businesses to encourage a healthy economy, it is the Walmarts and Amazons of the world which can always offer consumers a better price. If a customer has the choice to purchase the same item from a family-owned business at $6 or one from Walmart for $2, the latter options usually wins out.

6. Free trade can encourage the theft of intellectual property.
When the United States and China put together a free trade agreement, there was a belief on the American side that it would be possible to expand business opportunities exponentially with market access overseas. Then the reality of the situation hit. Chinese companies, which are all mostly owned by the government, required Americans to sign over their intellectual property rights as a way to gain access to the market. It created a net win for China and a net loss on the U.S. side because if the American companies refused, the Chinese ones just stole it anyway.

7. It can result in more job outsourcing.
Let’s go back to that idea where a garment industry firm could pay employees $1,600 less per month by shifting production from the United States to Bangladesh. Even if there are more logistics issues to worry about after the job outsourcing occurs, there is nothing in place to stop the company from reaping significant rewards. That is why tariffs are often in place from the very start. It creates a disincentive for organizations to outsource their labor, and then import the product back to consumers at the same price. U.S. manufacturers did that after the creation of NAFTA because of the differences in labor cost too

The pros and cons of free trade are generally positive because it creates a system that is closer to a free market with the countries involved with the contract. Although there are challenges to consider, especially with a poorly-written agreement, it is the consumer who wins at the end of the day. When they have access to more innovation and expertise, then they can have their problems solved more effectively.

When a person or a corporation has the right of the freedom of speech, then they are able to express any opinion without restraint or censorship. This approach to society is a democratic institution which dates back to the ancient Greek culture.

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech for all people. Through this fundamental right, Americans have the freedom to protest, practice the religion they want, and express opinions without worrying about the government imprisoning them for criticism. It was adopted on December 15, 1971, as part of the Bill of Rights.

As with all modern democracies, even the United States places limits on this freedom. There are specific limits placed on this principle that dictate what people can or cannot say legally. The First Amendment does not specifically say what is or is not protected, but the Supreme Court has ruled that there are some forms which are not allowed.

Here are the freedom of speech pros and cons to consider with this element as part of a democratic society.

List of the Pros of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech protects each of us from the influence of special interests.
When people have power, then they do whatever they can to retain it for as long as possible. That may include a change in the government’s constitution, a shift in a company’s Board of Directors, or the suppression of a minority group that threatens the way of life for the people involved. Having the freedom of speech reduces this power because it allows individuals to express criticism of those who are in power. There is no fear of losing personal freedom with this right because your opinion contributes to the overall conversation.

2. Freedom of speech eliminates compelled actions.
When you have the freedom of speech, then the government cannot compel your actions in such a way that you are required to speak a specific message. You stay in control of what you say and how those words are expressed to the rest of society. Even if the government attempts to alter your words to their advantage, you will always have the opportunity to address the situation and correct the “mistakes” that others create in your work.

3. Freedom of speech promotes the free exchange of ideas.
When a society operates in an area where free speech is given to all, then there is a more significant exchange of ideas that occur. It becomes almost impossible for those who are in power to suppress truths that they may not want to let out in the open. This process allows for progress to occur because people can learn from the experiences and perspectives of one another without worrying about the dogma of a “Big Brother” element in society, either corporate or government-based.

4. Freedom of speech can expose immoral or unlawful activities.
When Edward Snowden decided to leak numerous state secrets to the press, he created an interesting question about the freedom of speech that we are still attempting to resolve in our society. Was such an action inflicting damage against the legitimate actions of the government? Or was the information he offered a way to bring light to actions that the government shouldn’t have been performing in the first place? It is tricky to find the line which exists when you must protect information or protect others. Having this right in society allows us to at least have that conversation.

5. Freedom of speech prevents the requirement to behave specific ways.
Some people today might say that any speech which someone finds offensive should be banned. Imagine then that someone became offended by the mention of same-gender marriage – or the opposite, that they were offended by the mention of opposite-gender marriage. Freedom of speech allows people to make up their minds about what to share with others. Some people might be brazen with their approach, but that also means they might not have as many friends because of their attitude.

6. Freedom of speech advances knowledge for a society.
When you have a chance to ask questions or share perspectives, then it creates more learning opportunities in society. This right makes it easier for all individuals to make a new discovery, suggest ideas, or exchange information freely without worrying about potential political consequences. Even if some of the ideas do not work after you get to try them, the process of testing contributes to the advancement of society as well. Thomas Edison famously made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at the invention of the light bulb – each idea was a new step toward success.

7. Freedom of speech allows for peaceful changes in society.
Some people use their freedom of speech as a way to incite hatred or violence. Others use it as a way to create the potential for peaceful change. Providing facts to individuals while sharing your opinion can persuade them to consider your perspective, even if they do not agree with it at the time. When this is your top priority with this right, then you are less likely as an individual to use violence as a way to create change. Although this process requires patience from all of us to be successful, it will usually get us to where we want to be.

8. Freedom of speech gives us an opportunity to challenge hate.
Peter Tatchell is a human-rights activist who suggests that the best way to move forward as a society is to challenge the people who have differing views. He told Index in 2016 this: “Free speech does not mean giving bigots a free pass. It includes the right and moral imperative to challenge, oppose, and protest bigoted views. Bad ideas are most effectively defeated by good ideas, backed by ethics and reason, rather than bans and censorship.

9. Freedom of speech creates resiliency.
Although exposing people to hate speech is hurtful and creates fear in some individuals, it also creates a resiliency in the debate. Instead of making your voice louder when confronting these ideas, you are improving your argument. When this action occurs, the action of observation and counter-observation make it possible to create an outcome where progress toward the greater good occurs. When we lack tolerance for differing, uncomfortable opinions, then it weakens the rights that so many people take for granted when there is something that they want to say.

List of the Cons of Freedom of Speech

1. Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to have “all” speech.
The concept behind the freedom of speech is that you should be able to express anything in a way that does not create legal consequences for you. Even if your opinion is unsavory, rude, or unpopular, this right gives you the option to express it. In the United States, there are four forms of speech which are not protected under the First Amendment.

• You cannot make an authentic threat against another individual.
• It is illegal to defame others, including libel and slander.
• You cannot plagiarize any copyrighted material.
• It is illegal to share some obscene material, such as child pornography.

If you say something in the United States which insights illegal actions or solicit others to commit a crime, then your speech is not protected by the First Amendment either.

2. Freedom of speech can spread false information.
Thanks to the rise of the Internet, the freedom of speech makes it easier for individuals to spread false information and outright lies, but then still pretend that this data is true. Research does not prove that vaccinations increase the risk of autism in children, but you will find “information” online that says this is true. Even though it is protected speech when this right is present, it could also lead to people getting or transmitting a preventable disease. In 2019, over 60 people in Washington and Oregon contracted the measles, with almost all of the cases being unvaccinated children.

3. Freedom of speech can incite violence against other people.
People must be held responsible for the personal choices that they make. When someone commits an act of violence against another because they were incited by hate speech to do so, then they made the choice to break the law. The person who created the outcome through the encouragement of their language holds some responsibility here as well. If online radicalization causes people to join ISIS, then shouldn’t political radicalization that causes individuals to attack journalists be treated in the same way?

4. Freedom of speech creates a paradox.
When we look at the modern idea that creates the foundation for freedom of speech, it really isn’t free. The government is still dictating some of the things that we can or cannot say. This freedom, and this writer, cannot exist if people are not allowed to make assertions that are distasteful to the majority, even if the statements are hurtful to other people.

5. Freedom of speech can create a mob mentality.
In 2012, Oatmeal and FunnyJunk had a dust-up over the use of images that author Matthew Inman did not authorize for distribution. Charles Carreon made a public splash as the attorney for FunnyJunk, which created a back-and-forth which eventually led the Internet to turn against him. In return for those actions, Carreon labeled everyone he thought of as an “instigator” as a “rapeutationist.” When one person offers an opinion that others find to be believable, it creates a mob mentality on both sides of the equation. When this happens, it can destroy a person’s livelihood quickly.

6. Freedom of speech can cause people to endure verbal abuse.
Voltaire’s biographer summed up the views of the philosopher like this: “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” When freedom of speech is treated this way, then it creates a situation where people must endure sexist or racist verbal abuse. Is it really beneficial for society to allow individuals to use derogatory terms for the purpose of causing discomfort?

We already know that there can be poor health outcomes associated with the fear of violence and crime. Dr. Erin Grinshteyn of UCSF conduced an online survey platform that asked students to rate their fear of experiencing 11 different crimes that included physical assault, hate speech, vandalism, and microaggressions among others. Her findings showed that students in racial minority groups feared violence more than Caucasians. Ongoing fear is a risk factor for mental health declines as well.

7. Freedom of speech will eventually polarize society.
When people are allowed to express their opinions freely, then it creates three primary outcomes. Some people will agree with the statement, others will disagree, and a middle group won’t care one way or the other. People tend to hang out in circles where others think and feel in similar ways, which means they will gather around like-minded individuals to spend most of their time.

Pew Research found as early as 2014 that 92% of Republicans are to the political right of the median Democrat, while 94% of Democrats were to the left of the median Republican. 36% of GOP supporters even felt that members of the opposite party were a threat to the wellbeing of the country. When there are ideological silos created from free speech, it eventually polarizes society into groups that struggle to get along with each other.

28% of people say that it is important to them to live in a place where most others share their political views. For people who label themselves as “consistently conservative,” that figure rises to 50%, and 63% of that same group says that most of their close friends share their political views.

8. Freedom of speech reduces the desire to compromise.
Pew Research also discovered that when people are consistently liberal or conservative with their freedom of speech, their idea of what compromise entails begins to shift. Instead of believing that both sides must have a give-and-take to create an outcome, the definition becomes one in which their side gets what they want while the other side gets as little as possible. This perspective makes it a challenge for society to function because those on each extreme are consistently battling the other extreme because each views themselves as being the superior contributor to society.

A Final Thought on the Pros and Cons of Freedom of Speech

The pros and cons of freedom of speech suggest that there should be some limits in place for the general good of society. Allowing people to say or do whatever they want at any time increases the risk for harm. Do we really want to live in a world where the creation and distribution of child pornography is a protected right?

Once we start deciding “good” and “bad” speech, it opens the door for abuses to occur. That is why the Supreme Court in the United States has worked hard for over 200 years to create rigid definitions of what is helpful and what is harmful. The goal is to allow people to express contrary opinions without the threat of legal reprisal. This structure promotes an exchange of ideas, which then encourages the learning processes for everyone.

Gene therapy is a medically-based practice that uses normalized genetics to replace genes which are either not present or abnormal for some individuals. Doctors would take the specific gene sequences that need adjustment, and then insert them into the cellular information of the patient in various ways. Most forms of gene therapy are still in the clinical research stage, but there have been stories of encouraging results.

Several inherited immune deficiencies are being treated successfully right now with gene therapy. When the blood stem cells are removed from patients, retroviruses then deliver working copies of the defective genes to the body.

For the gene therapy options which have been approved for use, there are many success stories to consider. Sebastian Misztal is one such story. He was a patient in a hemophilia gene therapy trial in 2011. After receiving the therapy, Misztal no longer experiences episodes of spontaneous bleeding.

Roughly 70% of the currently active gene therapy clinical trials are based in the United States. Europe approved their first treatment in this area in 2012. These are the pros and cons of this scientific approach to consider.

List of the Pros of Gene Therapy

1. Gene therapy provides hope for those who may not have had any in the past.
About 3% of American children are born with a genetic condition which requires gene therapy as a way to treat the issue. At this time, the diseases and disorders which are present in this population will take the life of the child before there is an opportunity to correct the condition. Birth defects are the leading cause of newborn death in the United States, with as many as 1 in 5 children suffering from them. Advances in gene therapy could help to correct these issues instead of forcing parents into a heartbreaking scenario.

2. Gene therapy could change the perspectives that people have about disease.
Roughly 10% of all Americans are affected by a rare disease or condition on any given day. Approximately 33 million people are suffering from a disability that is directly attributed to their genetic profile. The promise of gene therapy is that it can reduce or eliminate the pain and discomfort that these abnormalities cause. 80% of the diseases that we know impact human health in negative ways have a genetic foundation. If we can replace the cells or chromosomes that are at-fault, then it becomes possible to offer relief.

3. Gene therapy could offer the potential of new discoveries.
Our world is a better place when there is an emphasis on diversity. When we have effective gene therapy treatments that can save lives or prolong them, then we are adding strength to our existence. There will be more opportunities to research, new ideas that could lead to critical discoveries, and relationships that can lead to future generations that experience these benefits as well. There will always be a segment of society that looks at gene therapy as a way to “play God.” The reality of this medical treatment is that it can help people continue to live a life that they love.

4. Gene therapy could be used in different ways to improve life.
Right now, the focus of gene therapy research is to provide solutions for people who are suffering from specific illnesses or diseases. When we begin to experience successes in this field, then the information we learn can apply to other treatment areas as well. Gene therapy could be useful in the treatment of infertility issues. The processes involved may help people struggling with vision or hearing issues. Even if the only thing that we can do with this science is to relieve chronic pain, that would be tremendously beneficial for the futures of many people.

5. Gene therapy does not just apply to human treatment options.
When we discuss the pros and cons of gene therapy, it is essential to remember that the benefits we can experience as humans apply to other forms of life as well. The technologies we create from this research could help us to grow crops that adapt more effectively to changing climate conditions. We could use this information to correct the various genetic conditions that we know about in the animal kingdom. This data could help us to grow healthier foods, increase the shelf life of harvests, or produce more items in our overall yields.

6. Gene therapy allows us to use technology to improve the quality of life for people.
Many of our medical discoveries rely on technological processes that we apply to natural items. Even some of the most critical advancements of our era, such as the development of a polio vaccine by Dr. Jonas Salk (and the work of many others) relied on the use of inactivated virus materials to create the first usable product. Gene therapy would become one of the first treatment options for doctors that was purely technological. That means our opportunity to develop new resources from it are virtually unlimited.

7. Gene therapy allows us to treat the “untreatable” diseases.
Gene therapy is potential miracle worker when we start to look at its full potential for humanity. It offers us the opportunity to eliminate, and then prevent hereditary diseases like hemophilia and cystic fibrosis. The technologies behind this treatment option could provide us with a possible cure for heart disease. Potential medical options include cancer and AIDS cures. Even if there is a fair amount of risk involved when treating these health issues, there are a lot of patients who don’t have much to lose. Gene therapy opens a door that we once thought was permanently locked.

List of the Cons of Gene Therapy

1. Gene therapy does not have a reliable delivery method.
Retrovirus delivery systems are the most common way for gene therapies to be delivered to patients. The problem with this option is that the enzyme used to encourage the transfer of genetic data can be eliminated by the immune system before it has the chance to work. There could be issues with cell division or replication that limit the effectiveness of the treatment.

When there is a noticeable change to the cell, the body might attack itself without the presence of an immunosuppressant. Until we can remove and replace genetic data with more reliability, the success stories for gene therapy will always be hit or miss.

2. Gene therapy is an expensive procedure.
There are several gene therapy options which are available right now, but they come at a steep price. If you use Luxturna to treat both eyes as a way to treat blindness, then the final cost could be more than $1 million. Even the “affordable” options in this field start at $200,000 per treatment. That’s why many patients weight for clinical trials to begin, and then apply for a spot in one to receive the help they need. Most healthcare insurance plans will not cover the cost of these procedures because of their uncertainty.

3. Gene therapy requires ongoing treatment s to be effective.
Many people have found that the benefits of their gene therapy treatments began to wear off as soon as they were no longer taking their medicine or visiting their doctor for treatments. It can be a lifelong course that someone must follow to reduce or eliminate the genetic issues that hold back their health. Unless you can keep taking the products which are often priced above $100,000 per treatment, then you will experience a reversal in your condition.

4. Gene therapy may not be able to adapt to a changing world.
It has taken less than a century for prescription-grade antibiotics to no longer be as effective for the treatment of bacterial infections as it once was. Antibiotic resistance can impact anyone at any age, and in any country. Sometimes it occurs naturally, but the most common reason for this issue is that antibiotic misuse has led to a growing number of infections, including pneumonia, tuberculosis, and salmonellosis being more challenging to treat because the medicine is not as effective against the bacteria.

This issue could occur with gene therapies too. We have already seen people begin to have their progress reverse itself when they stop following their treatment plan. Over the next couple of generations, the body could start resisting this option too.

5. Gene therapy might only delay the inevitable.
Jolee Mohr was lying in a Chicago hospital, her body swollen by internal bleeding and organ failure. The sight was so difficult that her husband decided not to bring their 5-year-old daughter into the room to say goodbye. Although there was no evidence to suggest a link, Jolee had taken an experimental treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. She was only 36 years old.

The National Institutes of Health approved the first human gene transfer study in 1989. Through 2006, there were 800 gene therapy studies that involved 5,000 patients. In those 17 years, the total number of approved therapies was zero. The only success story was a cure for the “bubble boy” disease that also caused leukemia thanks to the virus that delivered the treatment.

And Jolee wasn’t the only story. A teenager named Jesse Gelsinger also died because of treatments offered inn a clinical research study. We must remember that there are sad stories to tell in addition to the happy ones when evaluating this treatment option.

6. Gene therapy will shift society toward new polarization.
The United States is already highly polarized from a political perspective If gene therapies are approved for widespread use, then it may create another layer of separation from a medical perspective. Although most people can get behind the idea of creating a cure for cancer, birth defects, or chromosomal disorders, the processes used could also create designer genetics that promise a specific outcome. Should we pursue a scientific field that could help our children become smarter, faster, or better looking?

7. Gene therapy could change the way we think about competition.
Although the discussion of “designer babies” often involves looks, the science behind gene therapy could also encourage specific traits to develop in children. Parents with wealth could work with their doctors to support a healthier muscle mass, faster fat burning capabilities, or an adaptive body frame that allows for greater flexibility in sports. People could design an outcome where results could follow a curve where outcomes could be planned for years in advance. This process would result in another layer of socioeconomic separation that would likely lead to even more polarization.

The pros and cons of gene therapy still require a lot of soul searching, even though we are 30 years and counting into this field of research. We are beginning to see some successes, but it has also come at the expense of some high-profile failures. Only time will tell if we can put this information to good use for the betterment of humanity. Until then, we must continue searching to find more solutions to the significant health issues our race faces each day.

Genetic engineering is the process which allows scientists to alter the structure of genes in a living organism. Through the use of deliberate modifications that occur because of a direct manipulation of DNA, it becomes possible to create changes in life forms to benefit each species and any others that may interact with them in some way. It becomes possible to subtract unwanted traits while adding new ones that can help the organism in question become “better” than it was before.

We often look at the science of genetic engineering through the lens of human potential or food access. It is essential to remember that the tools offered through this process can benefit almost every aspect of life in some way.

One of the first ways that we began to benefit from this approach was to use bacterial cells in a way where they could begin producing human insulin. Before genetic engineering made this treatment possible, diabetic patients were being treated with pig insulin. Not only did this reduce the number of adverse reactions to the treatments offered because of the immune system responses involved, but it also made it possible to treat more people while reducing the burdens placed on the animals.

The technology of genetic engineering has the potential to save millions of lives. It also has the potential to cause significant harm. That is why a careful evaluation of these pros and cons is essential as we begin to move forward in this field.

List of the Pros of Genetic Engineering

1. It can improve the nutrition, taste, and growth rate of crops.
Crops like tomatoes, soy beans, rice, and potatoes are currently going through the genetic engineering process as a way to obtain additional strains that provide better nutritional qualities and increase yields. This process would also make it possible for the items to grow on lands which are not presently suitable for cultivation. By shifting the genetic structure of these crops, it becomes possible to engineer the foods in ways that help them to taste better and become better for us.

One important example of this advantage is called “golden rice.” This crop produces higher levels of a Vitamin A precursor as it is growing. By providing this product to regions of the world where populations are not getting enough of this nutrient, we can help people lead happier, fuller lives. A lack of this vitamin can eventually lead to blindness.

2. It can lead to crops which have natural pest resistance.
The genetic engineering process makes it possible to create crops that are resistant to pests even when they are in seed form. An example of this advantage involves the plant gene At-DBF2. When engineers insert this gene into tobacco or tomato cells, the plants can begin to increase their endurance levels to handle harsh climatic conditions and poor soil nutrition. This process can even be used to reduce the levels of food spoilage which occur because the food products last longer on store shelves.

3. It can help use to begin producing new foods.
Genetic engineering gives us the opportunity to begin producing new substances that can enter the human food chain. We can add nutrients, proteins, and other items that populations need when food insecurity exists to encourage a better overall level of health for each individual. We can even use this process to introduce medications to specific populations who may need them, creating the possibility of an edible vaccine.

4. It is a process that could improve human health at the cellular level.
Genetic engineering offers us the opportunity to improve human health because we can correct the sequences and chromosomes which lead to serious health conditions for some individuals. This technology gives us the option to modify genotypes before someone is born as a way to manipulate specific traits in that future human potentiality. It could correct birth defects, eliminate genetic disease before it starts, or become the foundation of treatments to help those who already have a correctible condition.

5. It can boost the positive traits in every life form.
The goal of genetic engineering is to create a better world by boosting the positive traits that every life form has at the cellular level. We would keep these enhanced changes while reducing or eliminating the ones which contribute to our weaknesses as a species. Although the treatment process would certainly address genetic disease first, we could also use this process to reduce cancer risks, prolong life, and provide cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

6. It can be used to help current food resources to begin producing more of them.
When we use genetic engineering on existing food resources, then it becomes possible to increase the amount of production that is available in each sector. Dairy cows can be engineered at the genetic level to produce more milk that farmers would collect each day. Sheep can be altered so that they produce more wool and can need sheering more often. This process makes it possible for us to create more resources from what we already have, making it possible to feed a growing population.

7. It would help to improve the quality of the soil.
One of the ways that agricultural industries have promoted higher levels of food access is through the use of artificial fertilizers in cropland soil. Adding nitrates and other nutrients makes it possible to grow items in places where it would normally be unsuitable. When too many of these items get into the soil, the salts wash through into local water supplies. By creating crops that naturally resist pasts and weeds, we can improve the groundwater tables because each item grown is genetically engineered to adapt to the conditions that are present.

8. It follows the same processes we already use to create new resources.
Have you ever taken the pollen from one flower and given it to another? This process can help you to create a hybrid plant – a new form of life. Although you aren’t splicing cells together in this creation process, you are still creating changes in an artificial way because you are the cause of the cross-pollination. Genetic engineering takes this principle to the next level. By identifying specific traits and seeking them out in others, it becomes possible to create specific results that benefit society in numerous ways.

9. It would reduce the cost of food for the average household.
Genetic engineering gives us an opportunity to increase the amount of food that is available to communities around the world. It also gives us a chance to create products that have a longer shelf life to reduce waste in the agricultural industry. This combination of factors influences the law of supply and demand. When there is more available, then the prices for each item cost less. That means countries where 10% or more of discretionary income is spent on grocery purchases could begin to funnel resources toward different needs.

10. It would ensure that our food supply remains accessible.
When the state of Texas endured one of its most significant droughts beginning in 2010, the agricultural losses were staggering. Ranchers and farmers were losing up to $5 billion per year because there wasn’t enough rainfall occurring. Global warming is a trend that is happening, no matter what we may think is causing it. The science of genetic engineering makes it possible to develop food resources that can counter these changing conditions without requiring a significant alteration in lifestyle or working habits.

11. It gives us access to additional products that are useful.
When we have crops that produce higher yields, then it becomes possible to create additional products that fall outside of the human food chain. When there is an excess of corn or sugarcane available in the market, then these items can be used to create fuels like ethanol. We can grow enough food to produce feed for livestock that support our modern nutritional food profile. Because we have access to more, it allows us to create innovative items that can help the world in a variety of ways.

12. It allows patients to be treated with their own cells.
Although medical science is progressing by leaps and bounds, we are still running into one critical issue. When someone receives a transplant, then the body’s natural immune system can decide to reject the item as a foreign invader. Any treatment process that involves a difference in genetic material creates this possibility. We currently treat individuals in the situation with immunosuppressants as a way to help them regain their lives. By taking a genetic engineering approach, we would be able to create outcomes for patients by using their own cells, thereby reducing the risk of rejection.

Although immunosuppressants are effective at what they do, this medication can also put people at a higher risk for certain illnesses and infections. Reducing the need for this treatment option could help to restore health while also reducing the overall cost of treatment over the lifetime of the individual.

13. It can be used to improve our current pharmaceuticals.
We can also use genetic engineering processes as a way to improve the drugs which are currently available to patients right now. The science behind this approach could help make these pharmaceutical options become safer and more effective. We are already seeing the benefits with this tool in human growth hormone treatments. When this technology applies to the thousands of potential drugs that people use daily, it becomes possible to treat health issues with fewer resources. That could eventually reduce the cost of care for everyone.

14. It can increase the number of croplands we have available.
There are two potential ways to benefit from this advantage of genetic engineering. The first advantage is an ability to produce more food on less land. Farmers could create a similar yield using fewer resources, allowing them to plant a variety of crops that can diversify their product line for the season. It could also be useful in allowing certain areas to remain fallow for a season to help with natural soil restoration.

The second advantage is that when seeds are specifically engineered to work in a unique environment, we can start using spaces that would normally not be considered an arable region.

List of the Cons of Genetic Engineering

1. It can create less nutritional value in some foods.
When we create products through genetic engineering that make it possible to bring new products to the market faster than before, then there is an excellent chance that the item in question will have a lower nutritional value instead of a better one. When we develop products that grow big fast, it takes more food to create the same nutritional response. Broilers from the chicken industry are an excellent example of this disadvantage. Their time to market has reduced by 30 days in the last 100 years, but this benefit has come at the expense of higher fat content in the food.

2. It creates the potential for problematic pathogens.
With the introduction of antibiotics, and we have seen how quickly bacteria can adapt to changing circumstances. Viruses adapt just as quickly. When we create changes to the genetic structure of life, then we are encouraging an evolution in the pathogens that surround us every day. When these agents are unable to get through the natural repellents which engineers create for each life form, they can work on becoming stronger and more resistant to the changes made, creating new issues for plants and animals which are not benefiting from the genetic engineering process.

3. It creates the potential for unwanted side effects.
Penn State University suggests that when genetic engineers try to tackle one problem with plant or animal cellular structure, it creates an opportunity for additional side effects to occur which may be unanticipated or unwanted. It may become possible to modify an organism so that it requires less water for survival. This outcome occurs at the expense of creating a life form that is now intolerant to direct sunlight. Even though our predictive qualities in this field are increasing, we still do not know what happens when we artificially advance the evolution of life.

4. It would create an unfavorable level of diversity.
Have you heard that diversity is what gives us strength? This observation is generally true because having differences in our genetic structures reduces the chances of an unwanted mutation occurring. This positive outlook occurs naturally through the evolutionary process. When we make changes to a species that gets out into the wild, then we can have a negative impact on those which are not modified. It is a process which eventually decreases diversity because the strength of the “artificial” species would overwhelm the other.

5. It could create unpredictable outcomes.
Creating crops and food supplies which are genetically tailored to grow in specific geographical areas makes it possible to do more with fewer resources. It also creates a potential problem for agricultural workers if the environmental conditions change in the future. France is experiencing this issue with its vineyards right now because weather pattern changes are bringing frost and cold not seen since 1945. It caused harvests in the Bordeaux region to shrink by 40% in a single year – and that was for non-genetically engineered products. If the grapes were created specifically for that region’s regular conditions, then this outcome would have been even worse.

6. It might make it possible for companies to copyright our food.
Because genetic engineering is an artificial process, our current copyright laws make it possible for these organizations to obtain a patent on the structures they create. This format is in place as a way to help organizations recoup their research and development losses through future profits. When this issue applies to food supplies, then it creates a world where we must go through specific businesses to obtain what we need for basic survival unless there are alternative resources to use. A company could refuse to let anyone use their product as well, theoretically cutting off an entire industry at its knees to advance its own agenda.

7. It can put agricultural workers at risk for financial harm.
The reality of genetic engineering is already here. Over 53% of the global commercial seed market is already controlled by only three companies: DuPont, Monsanto, and Syngenta. Monsanto has already sued dozens of small farmers who are growing the seeds that they genetically modified without permission, earning verdicts totaling $23 million. In some cases, the seeds came from an authorized farmer and blew into neighboring fields because of regular growing conditions. In total, over 140 patent infringement lawsuits against 410 farmers have already been filed in at least 27 states.

8. It can reduce the amount of diversity in our food supply.
Although the purpose of genetic engineering is to improve diversity in positive ways, the outcome can be far different when a quest for profit is involved. Genetically engineered commodity crops, under the influences of patent protection, have become overwhelmingly dominant in our food supply already in the United States. 93% of soybeans and 86% of corn fall into this category.

9. It could be used for abusive purposes.
We currently look at the process of genetic engineering as a way to save people from the various maladies that can affect them through no fault of their own. Using corrective tools to repair a chromosome issue in a fetus increases the potential of that human life. The issue is that the same tools can target specific sequences that could change the way a child looks, such as their hair or eye color. It may be possible to alter the intelligence of an individual through this process as well. By creating an outcome where “designer babies” are a real possibility, this scientific process could create new socioeconomic classes in our global society that would be challenging to address.

10. It could interact negatively with other species.
Genetic engineering could create a series of unknown hybrids through the natural cross-pollination process that would provide unpredictable results for society. Our efforts to create food products might result in crops that we can no longer consume. Creating medicines in plants could cause bacteria and viruses to become more resistant to them when doctors try to treat an infection in a patient. The resilience effect is never permanent. We must either continue investing in scientific resources to stay one step ahead of nature when using this process or we will experience a significant disadvantage in future generations where our efforts to solve food scarcity actually create more problems with it.

11. It could create new diseases.
When we treat genetic conditions, then there is always the possibility that an outcome does not occur. Many of the modern approaches in this field have created temporary benefits at best. Then there is the issue of new disease development which may occur. Influenza is notorious for its ability to change how it infects people. Our efforts to reduce disease may end up causing more of them to develop.

These genetic engineering pros and cons show us a world where we can potentially create more food resources while reducing our risks of suffering from many of today’s worst diseases. The benefits of this work are not without potential risk. We could change the world in unpredictable ways with this science, and we might create outcomes which might make it challenging (if not impossible) for life to continue existing on our planet. That is why we must take each point under consideration before pursuing this process in its entirety.

Globalization carries the weight of several different definitions based on the subject matter under discussion. It can refer to the growing presence of multinational companies, the preference of some individuals to reduce border restrictions, or even the communication tools that people use to collaborate with one another.

How we access data is changing rapidly in today’s world. Sometimes these changes occur by the minute. As populations shift and weather patterns change, globalization can even be the emphasis that we have when working with one another to create a better world for everyone.

There are many ways that we can benefit from a society that is growing closer together. It can improve our standard of living, give us access to new technologies, and help us to learn about other cultures with greater ease.

Several disadvantages are possible because of globalization as well. Even though we can still identify as being human, we lose some of the personal definitions that are sometimes core components of our existence.

These globalization pros and cons show us that even though our world is closer than ever before, it could be said that we are also further away than ever in our history.

List of the Pros of Globalization

1. Globalization helps the world to focus on progress.
There are roughly 40 countries in the world today which have the “developed” status attached to them. That means there are 150+ nations that are still in various stages of development. Although there are many differences to consider when comparing these designations, it is poverty that stands out the most.

Over 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 per day, with at least 80% of the world living on less than $10 each day. The poorest 40% of the world’s population accounts for just 5% of global income. UNICEF estimates that over 22,000 children die every day because of the direct impact of poverty. Making an effort to create a smaller world could help to raise these living standards.

2. It would stabilize global currencies to create an equal playing field.
You might be surprised to know that the British pound isn’t the most valuable currency in the world. The Kuwait dinar actually trades at roughly $3.30, making it the top choice. The Bahraini dinar trades at $2.65. The top four countries are all located in the Middle East and have that value because of their natural resources. The British pound sterling ranks fifth.

Anyone living in a country that makes it into the top 10 (or the eurozone) can reasonably manage their costs without worrying about making ends meet. The value of the currency in developing countries is much less stable. Globalization would either phase these low-value options out of existence or bring up their value some to match with the rest of the world. That would help to create a better, more equal playing field for everyone.

3. We can use our resources as one planet instead of one nation with globalization.
The United Nations estimates that it would cost about $30 billion per year to solve the problem of world hunger. That’s about 5% of what the United States currently spends on defense. Although we would not completely eliminate war in a society that is global, we would be able to reduce our spending in some areas to create positive impacts in others. Many of the social issues that we face today could be stopped immediately if the trillions that are spend on border defense and resource protection were redirected into other areas.

4. Globalization could reduce human trafficking and labor exploitation.
When there are fewer restrictions on travel, imports, and exports, then there are more opportunities for people to find moments of success. Although the wealthy nations might see a decline through this process, those who live in poverty would see massive increases in their standard of living. This advantage could also raise employee wages, reduce concerns with human trafficking, and limit youth labor and slavery that are still problems in some areas of the world.

The uncomfortable fact about wealth is this: it is cheaper for companies in the developed world to outsource jobs to cheaper labor markets than to hire local workers. Globalization would work to equalize wages, which would create positive impacts for everyone over a long-term evaluation period.

5. It could prevent governments from creating repressive legislation.
As the world has moved closer toward a globalization environment, it has become a place that is more peaceful overall. Although there are still conflicts being waged around the world, the rate of battle deaths has been decreasing steadily for the past 50 years. It is currently lower today than at any time since the 15th century. The second half of the 20th century was extraordinarily peaceful for Europe, with fewer conflicts occurring than at any other time in the past 500 years.

Although there are risks to consider with a globalization environment where one government could crack down on everyone simultaneously, the trend for humanity has been a preference for peace when there are fewer restrictions in place.

6. We can communicate better because of globalization.
Because of the Internet, it is easier to communicate with other people all over the world today than ever before. We can speak with people immediately even if they are in a time zone that is 12 hours away. This structure has created new business opportunities that were only dreamed about in generations before. It is one of the reasons why some countries are experiencing self-employment rates that are topping 40%. People can find meaningful employment that pays better as long as they have access to online resources in some way.

7. Globalization would create more opportunities for trade.
If we create a world that offers fewer borders or obstacles to trade, then everyone will have more access to the unique goods and services that are available in various regions of the globe. There would be fewer taxes and tariffs involved in the movement of products. That could make it potentially cheaper to purchase some items. Although it may reduce some initial revenues for governments, it could also stimulate the economy because there are more opportunities to purchase items. There are currently over 1,500 different obstacles to importing or exporting goods in the world today. Imagine would might happen if they were to vanish one day?

List of the Cons of Globalization

1. Globalization can leave some cultures behind.
The process of globalization requires countries, cultures, and communities to set aside what their definition of “normal” happens to be for something that promises to be better. The fact is that there will be cultures and countries that must sacrifice something to create more equality for others. Although people who would benefit from this action would not see it as a disadvantage, those asked to make the most significant changes could find it to be a problematic issue.

It isn’t the wealthiest countries who are solely affected by this problem either. The developing world could get left behind if they decide to isolate instead of integrate as the world moves toward a closer culture.

2. It could create adverse impacts for the global environment.
The cultures that have already gone through the industrial revolution have created the issues with greenhouse gas emissions that 90+% of scientists around the world believe are a significant contributor to the processes of global warming. As our levels of trade increase globally, the amount of pollution we generate grows as well. With over 150 countries potentially needing an upgrade to their infrastructure, the environment would be set to take a significant hit to its health because of globalization.

The World Health Organization already estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year because of pollution. That figure could triple if we continue to globalize in a way that promotes industrial equality.

3. Each culture could be asked to change how they define themselves.
National borders are not the only boundaries that humans set for themselves as they go about the business of daily life. We also set limits on our cultural identity, ethnicity, and family environment. When we move toward a society that focuses on globalization first, then these points of emphasis hold less importance. They would still be present because individuals always define themselves in some way because of their history, but it would also be an element that slowly disappears.

The examples of this disadvantage are numerous in the world today. Texans consider themselves Americans first despite the fact that they were once an independent nation. People who live in the city-states of Italy are called Italians instead of what their culture prefers by the outside world. San Marino has one of the oldest democracies in the world, the lowest unemployment rate in Europe, and no national debt – and arguably no global identity.

4. Globalization would temporarily reduce high-paying jobs.
There would be a surge of employment in the places of the world where the cost of living is lower. Even as this process works to raise wages around the globe, the workers who are already in high-salary positions could find their jobs threatened by a push to offshore jobs as a way to grow the world’s economy. Even if employment opportunities remained for domestic workers, the threat of outsourcing could be used as a negotiating tool to drive wages downward in the developed world. Some households would be forced to have their standard of living go down to help others see their own begin to rise. That outcome could end up creating more harm for the economy than good because there would be less spending power available.

5. There is also the chance that globalization would only help the wealthy.
The people who have the power today are the ones who will drive the emphasis for globalization to become a reality. They are the individuals who will create policies, legislation, and frameworks that will bring the world closer together. There is one trait that most people who are in power share with each other: they wish to maintain it at any cost.

The natural mechanisms of globalization are to rise the living standards of the poor by redistributing some of the wealth earned by the rich. That process could be manipulated by those in charge to benefit only their nations or communities instead. This issue could even make it more challenging to find meaningful employment.

6. It could create health issues for human populations.
Imagine a world anyone can travel at any time to whatever location they choose. The lack of borders would certainly promote a level of freedom in our world that we have arguably never seen before in history. It could also create problems with disease transfers that could impact an entire society. It only took one person visiting from overseas with an active measles infection to cause an outbreak in Washington State and Oregon in the unvaccinated population. History shows us that when people come to new environments, they can give and receive diseases rapidly. Globalization would make it a lot easier for regional illnesses to become global epidemics unless there are controls put in place.

7. Globalization could reduce the availability of social protection programs.
When we talk about a reduction in borders, then there is a natural reduction in the potential for social safety net programs that would exist as well. Many of these supportive services are available in the developed world as a way to subsidize families so that they can get back on their feet. They do not always exist in the developing world where income levels may be less than $100 per month for workers. If we move toward a place of equality, then there are two options: provide more benefits to the developing world or cut those that are in the developed countries. Which option do you think would win out?

These globalization pros and cons give us hope because it pictures a world where we can all live in peace, striving toward goals that are mutually beneficial to everyone. There will always be conflict and issues with resource management that we must consider as the world continues to grow closer together. Even if we never eliminate borders entirely, the freedom that we experience with this process will always be tempered with risk unless we are proactive about controlling the adverse potential outcomes.

After experiencing two world wars in less than 50 years, the world was at a turning point. Food shortages were becoming common even in countries that had viable agricultural infrastructure in place. There was also an increase in drought and famine that would occur over the two decades after World War II that would decimate entire countries because of how it changed their growing seasons.

There was a need to find a solution to this problem and fast. That was how the Green Revolution would start.

The Green Revolution was a time when crop production increased dramatically in developing countries because of changes that occurred in the agricultural technological processes. This new approach used herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers to treat specific conditions found in the soil that prevented maximum crop growth.

It was an effort that allowed farmers to create more significant yields during each growing season when they follow the techniques provided by the Green Revolution.

The focus of this effort was to improve food access by improving the growing processes for the most popular crops consumed in the world at the time. Wheat and rice were able to grow at three times the amount that they did in the past because of the techniques introduced by this event.

List of the Pros of the Green Revolution

1. The Green Revolution allows us to produce more food than at any time in history.
The technological advances which occurred during the Green Revolution made it possible to feed a growing population despite the presence of challenging weather conditions and changing growing seasons. Some farmers were able to achieve yields that were even higher than what the averages offered when the new techniques were introduced to the developing world. As the idea spread to other countries, the same benefits began to be experienced by everyone.

2. The Green Revolution makes food access easier for everyone.
When farmers are able to grow more food on their croplands each season, then it becomes possible for the world to have more access to the nutrition that they require. The result of this work is so profound that we can produce more food on our current agricultural lands then what our current populations require. That means if we are going to have a second Green Revolution, then we will need to find ways to improve shipping and transportation infrastructures to reduce the amount of food waste we generate.

3. The Green Revolution improved the quality of crop structures.
The Green Revolution helped us to create several new strains of crops which are more resistant to pests and disease. This benefit is one of the primary reasons why farmers are able to achieve such consistent gains in productivity. It creates a product that is plentiful, healthy, and affordable to grow in virtually any country. The techniques behind this process don’t even require the use of GMO’s to create a successful result.

4. The Green Revolution creates predictable harvest schedules.
Farmers have always been dependent upon the quality of a growing season to maximize their potential profits. Thanks to the Green Revolution, there is more predictability in the income levels that are possible for agricultural workers in any environment. The threat of a poor season doesn’t go away entirely, but it can help farms find ways to produce the crops they need to get to the next year without going out of business. That means we have a predictable food chain that everyone can use to reduce scarcity issues as well.

5. The Green Revolution makes it possible to grow crops in different locations.
What we learned through this period of technological evolution is that it is possible to grow food products almost anywhere on our planet. There are no longer issues with poor soil or challenging weather conditions because farmers can use the ideas presented by the Green Revolution to maintain productivity levels. This process even makes it possible to create farms in places where it would be impossible before, such as above the Arctic Circle or in Antarctica.

6. The Green Revolution promises higher yields for the crops involved.
Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his contributions to the Green Revolution. He earned his bachelor’s degree in forestry in 1937, and then a doctorate from the university of Minnesota in 1942. Because of his work on wheat varieties, Mexico went from being a net importer to a net exporter of this crop by 1963. In a 5-year period, he was also able to double the yields that were coming out of India and Pakistan to reduce food security issues around the world. This work is credited with saving at least 1 billion people from starvation.

7. The Green Revolution made it cheaper to purchase food.
Another significant advantage of the Green Revolution is that the higher levels of availability made it possible for consumers to spend less on the foods that they need. Farmers are still able to make more money despite the lower costs because of the increase in yields they can achieve consistently.

In 1900, the average cost of food for the American household was 40% of their income. In 1950, that figure dropped to less than 30%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics now estimates that the average household in the United States spends 10% of their total budget on food. That means the total cost per year is $6,602. With inflation taken into consideration, it isn’t just income value that is going up. Costs are also going down.

8. The Green Revolution works with the environment.
Because we can use croplands more efficiently thanks to the processes introduced by the Green Revolution, there is no longer a need to transform landscapes into farming communities. Agricultural workers can meet food demands with the technologies and techniques offered on the current infrastructure, which reduces tree consumption and carbon release concerns.

Although natural lands were converted to croplands at a rate of 10% in the past 50 years, human population numbers have doubled during that time, while food production rates have managed to triple.

9. The Green Revolution reduces concerns about fallowing.
Arguably the most significant advantage of this agricultural transformation was a reduction in the need to fallow croplands. In regions where precipitation is scarce, farmers would need to let their land be left vacant every other year (and sometimes for two years after a growing season) to allow the soil to build up enough moisture to support crops. Now farmers can keep their croplands productive every season, making it possible to increase their income levels.

List of the Cons of the Green Revolution

1. The Green Revolution has led to an increase of artificial fertilizers.
The most significant disadvantage of the Green Revolution is that it can only be successful when artificial enhancers are added to the soil to support continued crop growth. If farmers were to grow the new strains of crops without pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers helping the process, then they would experience lower yields compared to the varieties that were grown traditionally. The new strains of wheat and rice were not as adaptive to local factors as the “normal” crops that were grown.

2. The Green Revolution has created high levels of food waste.
The world is actually growing more food than it can consume right now. 40% of the losses that we experience happens during processing or after agricultural workers harvest the fields. Most of the waste in the developed world where the Green Revolution was unnecessary occurs at the retail or consumer level instead. We will lose up to 50% of the foods that are grown each year in some categories. That means over 1.3 billion tons of food is grown and not consumed annually.

One of the most significant factors for food waste is the cost of it. Even though prices are moving downward for several crops, households living in poverty still struggle to make ends meet. About 20% of kids in the United States live in a food insecure household despite the high median income of the country.

3. The Green Revolution uses items that can harm the environment.
Because we have started using more synthetic chemicals and fertilizers to encourage larger yields on existing croplands, there are new issues with erosion and pollution that farmers must deal with every day. These components can pollute water systems that surround the fields where agricultural workers are producing food products. The items move downstream to expose other land areas that are not being worked. There are just as many concerns with the Green Revolution reducing soil quality levels as there are in the advantages that improve it.

4. The Green Revolution has created a growing resistance to synthetic chemicals.
One of the primary reasons that organizations are researching GMO’s for crops is that the plants and soil are developing a resistance to modern pesticides and herbicides. The Green Revolution forces us to continue looking at ways to involve plant chemistry so that we can maintain the increased yields that are possible. Although genetic modifications are generally treated as being safe, we do not have any long-term information about how these changes could impact human health.

5. The Green Revolution comes at a steep price.
Even though the addition of fertilizer and other synthetic additives can increase crop production, there are some farmers in the developing world who cannot afford these products. Some soil conditions are so poor that the number of additives necessary to produce a crop would cost more than the yields that were possible. In extremely poor conditions, a farmer may need $145 of product to produce less than $40 in returns per acre. Agricultural workers in the developed world may be able to handle this cost thanks to subsidies, but it may also put the hope of an income out of reach for those in poor countries.

6. The Green Revolution shifted our focus on cropland use.
According to information published by Vox in 2014 with National Geographic, about 55% of the world’s crop calories are consumed by humans. 36% of the croplands are currently being used for animal feed across the globe. That means the remainder is used as a cash crop for biofuels. In the United States, where cropland potential is at its highest, only 27% of the crap calories are directly consumed. Almost 2/3 of the crops grown in the U.S., including almost all of the soybeans, goes to animal feed.

7. The Green Revolution only solved some of the hunger crisis.
Although there are undoubtedly more people in the world today who are living in households that are food secure because of the Green Revolution, there is still a lot of hunger that we must solve. About one in four people are currently undernourished in the world today. Almost half of the children across the globe under the age of 5-years-old die because they lack access to proper nutrition. When the statistics of malnutrition and hunger are put together, roughly 10,000,000 people have their lives placed at risk because they lack access to food.

8. The Green Revolution can make the land become unusable.
The Green Revolution did make it possible for farmers to improve their yields thanks to soil management improvements. They are also discovering that the soil can become unusable faster because there are such high demands of productivity placed on it. Roughly 7.5 million acres of croplands are taken out of production because of degradation issues that are directly related to the overuse of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Even in the United States, roughly 350 million acres of land has been lost to this change in farming techniques in the past 30 years.

The pros and cons of the Green Revolution suggest that it is always possible to meet our need to have food when we allow creativity and ingenuity to be our guides. We already produce more food than we need right now, so our next effort must be to improve our usage of what we have. That means we must develop a food delivery system that sits outside of a political agenda to ensure the people who need this resource the most can have it. We must also set aside socioeconomic barriers that stop people from having access to food.

The group decision making process is a participatory event where multiple people can engage collectively to analyze the problem, and then develop a solution together. This process makes it possible to evaluate and consider several different courses of action that may be possible. The number of people that define a “group” varies based on the circumstances involved, but most organizations limit the number to seven or less.

These groups can be formal in nature, although many organizations prefer to keep the experience informal as a way to encourage creativity. Some groups are given the designation to come up with a specific goal or process that can help the larger team move forward. Others are tasked with a brainstorming session that benefits the individuals in the group alone. The decisions can be either structured or unstructured when results are achieved.

It is possible for the structure to lead toward an improved outcome when a variety of conditions that pertain to the chemistry of the group are satisfied.

There are several group decision making process and cons to evaluate if you are thinking about including this process with your team. Here are the key points to consider.

List of the Pros of Group Decision Making

1. It promotes the sharing of information between group members.
The most significant advantage of the group decision making process is that it removes silos on your team. People are encouraged to share information with one another because every opinion is valid with this structure. It becomes possible to take into account a wider range of information because there are multiple views involved in each discussion. Everyone has the chance to contribute their unique expertise and experiences to the final solution.

2. It creates the foundation of a better decision.
When a group comes together to make a decision collectively, then the judgment of everyone involved makes that process more intelligent and creative then if someone were tasked with doing it on their own. People are able to ask questions, collaborate, and discuss multiple ideas together as a way to identify strong solutions and complete recommendations.

This design makes it possible to observe a problem from different perspectives, which is the foundation of a better decision. Even if a leader is tasked with making the final choice, this advantage can help that person have more wisdom available to them for the process.

3. It can lead to a central position.
When the group decision making process is a primary component of any decision that must be made, then it typically moves the solution from an extremist position to a centrist one. The ideas which come under discussion have all of the pros and cons of each one evaluated to determine what the best course of action should be. This process eliminates the potential for a single individual to guide an entire team down a path that everyone sees as being wrong without being able to do something about the situation.

4. It creates more investment in the mission and vision of the team.
When people have an opportunity to take ownership over a decision or situation, then they are more likely to invest themselves in the final outcome. There is a greater commitment to the decisions made through the group decision making process because this effort encourages people to make an investment. It creates a spirit of cooperation that leads to a higher team moral over time. Even if the outcome doesn’t meet expectations, the group is willing to come together to create a better overall result.

5. It promotes higher levels of job satisfaction.
When teams commit to a group decision making process, there is generally a higher rate of job satisfaction found at the individual level. When people are happier about going to work, then there is a direct correlation to the quality of communication that occurs in the workplace. Everyone gets the opportunity to learn from one another, thereby increasing the amount of knowledge they can use in every-day life. That makes it possible to cross-train in some situations to continue high levels of productivity even if someone is absent.

6. It involves intelligent risk-taking opportunities.
Some people are unwilling to take risks when they have to do it on their own because of the potential for failure. When you place these individuals into a group decision making process, then they have more security to find an innovative solution because the risk factors involved are spread throughout the team. It makes it easier on each person involved with the group to become familiar with the problem, which allows for a potentially profitable decision to occur that some would be unable to find on their own.

7. It encourages collective thinking as a strength.
Making decisions as a group is very different than making a choice as an individual. It makes it possible to find a diverse set of views that can create a positive outcome for everyone involved. Even when there are extreme views being offered as part of the group decision making process, the desire to compromise on a mutually beneficial outcome creates new opportunities that may be otherwise unavailable to everyone.

8. It increases the soundness of the organization.
Whenever there is a decision that must be made, change is going to happen at some level. If there is one thing that most workers do not like about their workplace, it is the need to adapt to changing circumstances. When you can put everyone together in a room to discuss the problem that an organization faces, then it increases the soundness of its structure. There is a better chance that the team will come up with a cost-effective solution within a structure that is acceptable to everyone involved.

List of the Cons of Group Decision Making

1. It takes more time to reach a decision when using this process.
The group decision making process is less efficient from a timing perspective because there are multiple voices involved. Each person has the opportunity to contribute their perspectives and experiences to the greater conversation. That requires more time than what a single person would require because there is more coordination, discussion, and participation. Unless there is a leader who can facilitate this process effectively, it is easier for teams to get lost in the minutia of details instead of dealing with the overall situation.

2. It can make everyone think that they carry a leadership role in the organization.
Every organization relies on the leadership team to make effective decisions for everyone working on the mission or vision of the company. When you incorporate a group decision making process, then each person on that team is given a sliver of that leadership role. Although some individuals accept this responsibility in the form intended, many use this process as a way to expand their real or perceived power in the team environment. That can lead to reduced creativity because it discourages some team members to share their thoughts and opinions.

3. It can lead to a lower level of responsibility and accountability.
When you put together a group to brainstorm a solution, everyone will be fast to except credit for a successful experience. If there is a bad decision that comes from this process, then it is easier for the individual members to deny any personal responsibility for the outcomes that were achieved. Being in a group situation makes it a simpler process to blame others for poor results.

4. It can contribute to a process that is called “groupthink.”
Although the goal of the group decision making process is to come up with several different opinions to consider, there can be obstacles in place to this outcome. People often fight for their own ideas or opinions, which can create a bully pulpit during the discussion process. If one person stands out in a group that is apathetic, then there won’t be any other perspectives that become available. Some people will also agree with an idea that they don’t actually like because they want to avoid conflict within the group.

5. It relies on the expertise of each member to be successful.
If you put people together in a group situation, then that does not guarantee that you will have a successful collaboration experience. The benefits that are available through the group decision making process only calm when there is enough experience and expertise in the group to solve the problem. When people can only offer opinions instead of facts to the discussion, then the possibility of a poor outcome increases under this situation.

The group must have the ability to recognize what the problems, obstacles, and solutions are to be effective when brainstorming a situation.

6. It can be a process that leads to polarization.
There are times when a group decision may be inadequate for the solutions that are necessary for a problem that is under consideration. The individuals involved may move toward an extreme solution instead of taking a centrist approach. When this occurs, then the risks that the entire team will face in the future increase. Although there is the potential for massive rewards because of this process, it can also provide destructive elements to the culture of the workplace.

7. It creates a cost consideration that must come under evaluation.
Because there is more time involved with the group decision making process, companies must make a salary investment in this structure that may cause their costs to rise. It requires time and money to find relevant information, arrange meetings, have discussions, and arrive at a consensus of relevance. If the budget is a significant factor in the choices that are being made each day, then an individual decision might be the better choice to pursue.

8. It can be influenced by interpersonal conflicts.
Some people may choose not to participate in the group decision making effort because they have a personality or ethical conflict with other members of the team. When there is disagreement or disharmony involved with this process, then it is possible that the group may not arrive at a decision. This disadvantage is particularly powerful when the disruption occurs between leaders.

9. It can produce conflicting goals for an organization.
There can sometimes be conflict between the goals of a group and the overall mission that an organization wants to achieve. When this disadvantage occurs, the group may decide to pursue their own goals instead of trying to create a benefit for the overall company. The group decision making process can sometimes come to the conclusion that self-improvement is a better solution than organizational betterment.

The pros and cons of the group decision making process encourage teams to compromise and share ideas in ways that help everyone. Although there is no guarantee of success from this process, when there are more people involved, then there are usually fewer risks to worry about at the end of the day. It encourages ownership without placing undue pressure on a specific individual to find the correct choice.

Whether you agree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment in the United States that private ownership of firearms is permitted or not, everyone can find common ground with their concerns about gun violence. The scale of this issue is enormous in the United States even though the overall rate of crime is on a 20-year downward trend in many communities.

The facts about gun violence are undeniable. More than 38,000 people died because of a gunshot wound in the U.S. in 2016. Roughly 60% of these fatalities are self-inflicted. Another 80,000 people survive after being shot each year as well.

Depending on how one defines a “mass shooting,” the United States averaged one per day in 2016. Three of the deadliest events that qualify under any definition of this crime happened in 2016 and 2017.

Perhaps even more disturbingly, a woman in the United States is fatally shot by her partner once every 16 hours in the United States in an act of domestic violence.

There are many solutions being proposed on how to stop these violent acts from occurring. One of the options that is frequently discussed is the idea of gun control.

Here are the unbiased pros and cons of gun control to review as they pertain to the United States.

List of the Pros of Gun Control

1. By any definition of mass shooting used, most come from guns that were purchased legally.
In a study originally published by Mother Jones, over 75% of the incidents of mass shootings that took place over 30 years of research had the guns involved purchased legally in some way. The idea of gun control is simple here. If you take the ability to own weapons that are potentially dangerous from people who are likely to use them, then it offers the possibility of making society safer.

2. A majority of mass shootings start because of a domestic violence incident.
The Huffington Post discovered that 57% of the mass shootings that occurred from 2009 to 2015 in the United States happened when an attacker targeted a romantic partner or a family member. These incidents involved the deaths of at least four people happening inside or outside of the home. Leslie Morgan Steiner, author of Crazy Love, told The Trace this during a 2018 interview.

“One of the myths about domestic violence is that it’s private, that it happens behind closed doors and we should just stay out of it. It’s such an enormous community problem.” Federal law prohibits convicted domestic abusers from gun ownership, but matching state laws do not exist.

3. Homes with guns stored in them (even safely) increases the risk of a violent incident.
Research published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that the risk of a homicide occurring in a home is 40 times higher when there is a gun stored in it when compared to households that do not own a gun. Suicides are 90 times more likely to happen in homes where a firearm is present.

Linda Dahlberg found in her 2004 study that locking up the gun as a way to protect people does not impact these risks either. There is an increased risk of a violent incident happening no matter how safely the guns are stored or the number that are available in the home.

4. Current legal gun owners don’t need to lose their rights to make others safer.
One of the arguments against gun control is that a good guy with a firearm can stop a bad guy with one before something violent happens. The idea of gun control isn’t to break into the homes of people to take their firearms away if they own them legally. It is to restrict access to them when someone may be tempted to commit an act of violence with them.

There are numerous ways where this could occur with a minimal impact to current gun owners.

• Licensing requirements could work like a driver’s license to ensure firearm knowledge.
• Enforcing laws on the federal level in states would prevent ownership for those should shouldn’t have access to a gun.
• Temporary restrictions for specific charges that are domestically related could prevent “crimes of passion.”

The Supreme Court already ruled that individuals have the right to own guns. Gun control suggests that part of that right should involve responsible and knowledgeable ownership.

5. Gun control efforts could prevent accidental injuries.
Devin Hodges killed himself on New Year’s Eve 2018 after he accidentally shot his friend to death after showing off a loaded handgun in a shed on his property in Lawrenceville, GA. The accidental shot struck 17-year-old Chad Carless while he was sitting next to him.

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute notes that children who live in a home with a firearm, even if it is locked safely, are three times more likely to die because of an accidental shooting compared to kids who live in homes without a firearm.

About 200 people each year under the age of 25 die because of an accidental shooting in the United States. Up to 30% of these incidents could be prevented with simple gun control measures that include a loading indicator that anyone can understand.

6. There are loopholes in gun ownership that control measures could close.
There were over 4,400 gun shows in the United States operating in 1998. Roughly 500 of them occurred in Texas alone. Each year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimates that at least 2,500 of these shows occur annually. Up to 50% of the dealers at them are not licensed to sell firearms. Up to 10% of the guns that are used in crimes committed by juveniles were sold at either flea markets or gun shows.

That translates to about 26,000 firearms used in criminal activities that come from this sales process that remains widely unchecked. Gun control measures to require licensed vendors could prevent many of these sales as it would require them to conduct a criminal background check.

If the FBI fails to complete a background check in 72 business hours, even a licensed dealer can decide to complete the sale. Law enforcement then has three months to research the application, and then confiscate the gun if that person shouldn’t have purchased it. About 3.5% of background checks are not finished in those first three business days.

7. Only 3% of people own 50% of the civilian weapons in the United States.
The United States tops the world for the most guns that are owned privately in civilian hands. There is roughly one firearm owned in the U.S. for every person. There are an estimated 101 guns for every 100 people. The next country that comes even close to this ownership rate is Serbia, which has 75 guns per 100 people.

Only 1 in 4 households in the U.S. owns a gun, which means the majority of the quantity is owned by a relative few people. 3% of Americans own 50% of the firearms. If gun control measures looked at future purchases as a need instead of a want, it could help to reduce this issue.

8. It stops people from turning an act of murder into an act of mass murder.
Mother Jones also found that in roughly half of the mass shootings that happened between 1982-2012, high-capacity magazines were used to commit the crime. When this feature is available to a shooter, the fatality rate rose by more than 60% for each incident. Injury rates from high-capacity mags climbed 156%. When some can hold up to 90 rounds, then accuracy no longer becomes part of the equation. People intent on killing can spray an area to inflict mass casualties. Gun control measures could restrict this option without limiting firearm ownership.

9. Gun control laws could save a lot of money from a societal standpoint.
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation found that the average cost per person of gun violence in the United States was about $560 per year. The U.S. government lost over $5 billion in tax revenues because of these violent acts, with the majority of the costs due to the need for court proceedings. 84% of the people treated for gunshot wounds do not have insurance, which means taxpayers are responsible for the cost of their treatment. An increase in gun-related crime can even lower the property values of a neighborhood by more than 10%.

List of the Cons of Gun Control

1. Gun control doesn’t stop people who are determined to purchase a firearm.
If we have learned anything from the war on drugs that has occurred over the past 30+ years, it is that making a product illegal does not stop access to it. If someone wanted to smoke crack or use heroin, then they could still get the product despite the fact that ownership was not permitted under the law. There is no reason to suggest that firearms would follow a different track.

The problem with many forms of gun control is that it places restrictions on those who already own firearms instead of dealing with those who create problems in society. That is why there is a legitimate fear from current owners that steps like this could one day result in a confiscation effort.

2. Guns are tools that people use.
Anything can become a weapon for someone if their mind is set on causing harm. There have been recent terrorist attacks that killed dozens of innocent people because someone used a car as a weapon. There was a mass stabbing attack in China in 2014 that killed 29 people at a railway station. Over 700 people are murdered every year through a person’s hands, fists, or feet.

Although there are over 10,000 victims of homicide each year attributed to handguns or firearms, a gun is still just a tool. It might be an easy one to use if someone wants to afflict damage on others, but banning firearms won’t change an outcome for a determined individual.

3. Most of the gun violence statistics involve suicides.
When the statistics of gun violence are quoted in the media or in content like this, it is vital to remember that most sources combine homicide and suicide numbers as a way to drive home the point that guns offer fatal consequences. If someone decides to take their own life, it is clearly a tragedy. Something somewhere failed that person, making a gunshot the only way out.

About 25% of the successful suicide attempts in the U.S. in 2012 involved hanging or suffocation. Another 17% of people chose poisoning as the preferred way to end their life. If you combine these two actions, more people die from causes not related to firearms in this manner.

Identifying people who are contemplating this action is the step we must take to provide them with the help they require. If we only focus on gun control, then the other methods of suicide will see a surge of interest.

4. Gun control actions are usually based on fear instead of fact.
According to the Washington Times, 48% of people say that they are not comfortable seeing someone carrying a handgun in a holster in public. That figure climbs to 65% when speaking with Democrats. At the same time, 52% of people say that the “average American” can’t be trusted with a firearm and only 41% say that people should be able to carry guns in public in the first place.

Fear is often what drives the gun control debate. 40% of Americans are scared that they will become a victim in a mass shooting one day. A better solution than banning firearms would be to offer educational programs that help people to understand how it is a useful tool.

5. An effort at gun control doesn’t change the root cause of the issue.
People commit acts of violence against other for a variety of reasons, but it is a core issue of value that we must look at as a society to begin fixing the issues of violence that occur. We must think that all human life and its potential is priceless for us to begin moving beyond where we are at. Gun control measures might make it more difficult to commit acts of violence, but it will not change the heart at all.

As Time Magazine reports, the international standard for private healthcare plans and government-run facilities around the world is that a human life is only worth $50,000. Even when inflation comes into play, the highest valuation is less than $130,000. Core attitudes like this one are what set us back – not the decision to pick up a gun to try to do something about the problem.

6. Most incidents of violence that involve a gun are self-defense actions.
People are four times more likely to use a gun for self-defense purposes than they are to commit a crime with the firearm. Defensive stories are everywhere when you look for them specifically. A father in Jonesboro, GA, was attacked by an armed robber while walking with his daughter. He shot the criminal in self-defense and did not face charges.

Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her business in 2015. A pharmacy manager fatally shot a robber and wounded another after they threatened to kill people who were in the store. There are always stories of tragedy to find, but it is also important to review the stories of success where gun control could have prevented a successful outcome too.

7. Gun control laws do not deter crime.
A 2013 study published by Dr. John Lott, Jr, author of More Guns, Less Crime, found that in roughly 30 years of gun control bans, homicide rates at the state level were not significantly impacted by the legislation. The states which had the highest rates of gun ownership actually had the steepest drops in violent crime. Homicide is only one violent action. Rape, armed robbery, and similar acts also decline when there are more legal weapons owned by private individuals in society.

8. Laws that restrict gun ownership infringe on the rights of legal owners.
About 14 million hunters purchase firearms and accessories for their activities each year. Many of the guns that are targeted for control measures are called “assault rifles,” but that is not really what they are. The guns that often provide the most fear for people are also the firearms that are used in marksmanship competitions. 32% of gun owners say that the only reason why they own this tool is because they go hunting with it. The average gun is not more or less powerful than the average sporting or hunting weapon.

9. Gun control laws put the power of ownership in the hands of the government.
57% of people say that the reason why they don’t support most gun control measures is that they don’t want the government to have that kind of power over them. If a society does not have a way to protect itself, then there is nothing to stop a government from turning into a tyranny that could harm others. Even if the only measure passed is an expanded background check, then it creates more information for the government to use in one of their databases.

If the government knows who owns all the guns and can keep that information indefinitely, then there is nothing that can stop them from targeting those people first.

10. Measures to control guns create a violation of privacy.
Gun control measures may have the best interests of everyone in mind, but it is also an effort to reduce the amount of privacy that is available in society today. If microstamping efforts, licensing, or other forms of coding are instituted to track guns, then it would create a privacy issue where a database search could offer access to more information than anyone needs about a legal gun owner.

11. More people die from other causes at a significantly higher rate than they do with firearms.
People in the United States are over 20 times more likely to die because of heart disease than they are because of an act of gun violence. They are 18 times more likely to die because of a malignant tumor. They’re even 2.5 times more likely to die because of the complications they experience because of diabetes or 2 times more likely to pass away because of Alzheimer’s disease. Between 1999-2013, firearms were only the 12th-leading cause of death in the United States, responsible for 1.3% of fatalities.

12. Gun control laws do not prevent suicides from occurring.
Lithuania is an excellent example of why gun ownership is not a measuring tool to use when looking at the rate of suicide for a country. This nation has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world today at 0.7 per 100 people. It also has one of the highest average suicide rates in the world at 45 per 100,000 people. Japan has a lower rate of gun ownership and a suicide rate of 18 per 100,000 people. The U.S. ranks 26th in the world in this statistics despite having the highest rate of firearm ownership by far.

The pros and cons of gun control offer no easy answers for the American culture to consider. Rulings that involve the Second Amendment provide for individual ownership. That means both sides of this debate must work together to find elements of common ground that can help each group find ways to reduce the deaths attributed to firearms. If every life is precious, then we must treat it that way even when looking at challenging topics such as this one.

Homework was a staple of the public and private schooling experience for many of us growing up. There were long nights spent on book reports, science projects, and all of those repetitive math sheets. In many ways, it felt like an inevitable part of the educational experience. Unless you could power through all of your assignments during your free time in class, then there was going to be time spent at home working on specific subjects.

More schools are looking at the idea of banning homework from the modern educational experience. Instead of sending work home with students each night, they are finding alternative ways to ensure that each student can understand the curriculum without involving the uncertainty of parental involvement.

Although banning homework might seem like an unorthodox process, there are legitimate advantages to consider with this effort. There are some disadvantages which some families may encounter as well.

These are the updated lists of the pros and cons of banning homework to review.

List of the Pros of Banning Homework

1. Giving homework to students does not always improve their academic outcomes.
The reality of homework for the modern student is that we do not know if it is helpful to have extra work assigned to them outside of the classroom. Every study that has looked at the subject has had design flaws which causes the data collected to be questionable at best. Although there is some information to suggest that students in seventh grade and higher can benefit from limited homework, banning it for students younger than that seems to be beneficial for their learning experience.

2. Banning homework can reduce burnout issues with students.
Teachers are seeing homework stress occur in the classroom more frequently today than ever before. Almost half of all high school teachers in North America have seen this issue with their students at some point during the year. About 25% of grade school teachers say that they have seen the same thing.

When students are dealing with the impact of homework on their lives, it can have a tremendously adverse impact. One of the most cited reasons for students dropping out of school is that they cannot complete their homework on time.

3. Banning homework would increase the amount of family time available to students.
Homework creates a significant disruption to family relationships. Over half of all parents in North America say that they have had a significant argument with their children over homework in the past month. 1/3 of families say that homework is their primary source of struggle in the home. Not only does it reduce the amount of time that everyone has to spend together, it reduces the chances that parents have to teach their own skills and belief systems to their kids.

4. It reduces the negative impact of homework on the health of a student.
Many students suffer academically when they cannot finish a homework assignment on time. Although assumptions are often made about the time management skills of the individual when this outcome occurs, the reasons why it happens is usually more complex. It may be too difficult, too boring, or there may not be enough time in the day to complete the work.

When students experience failure in this area, it can lead to severe mental health issues. Some perceive themselves as a scholarly failure, which translates to an inability to live life successfully. It can disrupt a desire to learn. There is even an increased risk of suicide for some youth because of this issue. Banning it would reduce these risks immediately.

5. Eliminating homework would allow for an established sleep cycle.
The average high school student requires between 8-10 hours of sleep to function at their best the next day. Grade-school students may require an extra hour or two beyond that figure. When teachers assign homework, then it increases the risk for each individual that they will not receive the amount that they require each night.

When children do not get enough sleep, a significant rest deficit occurs which can impact their ability to pay attention in school. It can cause unintended weight gain. There may even be issues with emotional control. Banning homework would help to reduce these risks as well.

6. It increases the amount of socialization time that students receive.
People who are only spending time in school and then going home to do more work are at a higher risk of experiencing loneliness and isolation. When these emotions are present, then a student is more likely to feel “down and out” mentally and physically. They lack meaningful connections with other people. These feelings are the health equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes per day. If students are spending time on homework, then they are not spending time connecting with their family and friends.

7. It reduces the repetition that students face in the modern learning process.
Most of the tasks that homework requires of students is repetitive and uninteresting. Kids love to resolve challenges on tasks that they are passionate about at that moment in their lives. Forcing them to complete the same problems repetitively as a way to “learn” core concepts can create issues with knowledge retention later in life. When you add in the fact that most lessons sent for homework must be done by themselves, banning homework will reduce the repetition that students face, allowing for a better overall outcome.

8. Home environments can be chaotic.
Although some students can do homework in a quiet room without distractions, that is not the case for most kids. There are numerous events that happen at home which can pull a child’s attention away from the work that their teacher wants them to do. It isn’t just the Internet, video games, and television which are problematic either. Household chores, family issues, employment, and athletic requirements can make it a challenge to get the assigned work finished on time.

List of the Cons of Banning Homework

1. Homework allows parents to be involved with the educational process.
Parents need to know what their children are learning in school. Even if they ask their children about what they are learning, the answers tend to be in generalities instead of specifics. By sending home work from the classroom, it allows parents to see and experience the work that their kids are doing when they are in school during the day. Then moms and dads can get involved with the learning process to reinforce the core concepts that were discovered by their children each day.

2. It can help parents and teachers identify learning disabilities.
Many children develop a self-defense mechanism which allows them to appear like any other kid that is in their classroom. This process allows them to hide learning disabilities which may be hindering their educational progress. The presence of homework makes it possible for parents and teachers to identify this issue because kids can’t hide their struggles when they must work 1-on-1 with their parents on specific subjects. Banning homework would eliminate 50% of the opportunities to identify potential issues immediately.

3. Homework allows teachers to observe how their students understand the material.
Teachers often use homework as a way to gauge how well a student is understanding the materials they are learning. Although some might point out that assignments and exams in the classroom can do the same thing, testing often requires preparation at home. It creates more anxiety and stress sometimes then even homework does. That is why banning it can be problematic for some students. Some students experience more pressure than they would during this assessment process when quizzes and tests are the only measurement of their success.

4. It teaches students how to manage their time wisely.
As people grow older, they realize that time is a finite commodity. We must manage it wisely to maximize our productivity. Homework assignments are a way to encourage the development of this skill at an early age. The trick is to keep the amount of time required for the work down to a manageable level. As a general rule, students should spend about 10 minutes each school day doing homework, organizing their schedule around this need. If there are scheduling conflicts, then this process offers families a chance to create priorities.

5. Homework encourages students to be accountable for their role.
Teachers are present in the classroom to offer access to information and skill-building opportunities that can improve the quality of life for each student. Administrators work to find a curriculum that will benefit the most people in an efficient way. Parents work hard to ensure their kids make it to school on time, follow healthy routines, and communicate with their school district to ensure the most effective learning opportunities possible. None of that matters if the student is not invested in the work in the first place. Homework assignments not only teach children how to work independently, but they also show them how to take responsibility for their part of the overall educational process.

6. It helps to teach important life lessons.
Homework is an essential tool in the development of life lessons, such as communicating with others or comprehending something they have just read. It teaches kids how to think, solve problems, and even build an understanding for the issues that occur in our society right now. Many of the issues that lead to the idea to ban homework occur because someone in the life of a student communicated to them that this work was a waste of time. There are times in life when people need to do things that they don’t like or want to do. Homework helps a student begin to find the coping skills needed to be successful in that situation.

7. Homework allows for further research into class materials.
Most classrooms offer less than 1 hour of instruction per subject during the day. For many students, that is not enough time to obtain a firm grasp on the materials being taught. Having homework assignments allows a student to perform more research, using their at-home tools to take a deeper look into the materials that would otherwise be impossible if homework was banned. That process can lead to a more significant understanding of the concepts involved, reducing anxiety levels because they have a complete grasp on the materials.

The pros and cons of banning homework is a decision that ultimately lies with each school district. Parents always have the option to pursue homeschooling or online learning if they disagree with the decisions that are made in this area. Whether you’re for more homework or want to see less of it, we can all agree on the fact that the absence of any reliable data about its usefulness makes it a challenge to know for certain which option is the best one to choose in this debate.

Human cloning in the form of identical twins is the closest comparison that we have to this scientific concept at this time. Artificial cloning processes have yet to be developed, and they may never be brought to light because of the numerous ethical and moral concerns involved with the technology that would allow a genetically identical copy of an existing or previously existing individual to be grown.

Even when there are naturally duplicated “clones” that share a nearly identical genetic profile, they are not exact duplicates. Each person has different experiences, thoughts, and perspectives that combine to create a unique individual. Even people who share a similar environment with similar DNA can turn out to be very different individuals.

When looking at the major human cloning pros and cons, it is essential that we balance the need to evolve the scientific processes involved in this artificial task while addressing the ethical and moral concerns which currently exist when manually creating or changing a genome. These are the crucial points to review.

List of the Pros of Human Cloning

1. Human cloning could resolve fertility issues.
Couples who are unable to naturally conceive will be able to create children to whom they are a genetic relative thanks to human cloning. Infertility could become an issue of the past because doctors could take the genetic profile of each parent, infuse it into an embryo outside of the body, and potentially grow the fetus in a laboratory environment. This process could help countries such as Japan who are struggling with low birth rates right now.

The BBC reported in late 2018 that there was a remarkable decline in fertility rates in the developed world. In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children during their lifetime. In 2018, the fertility rate was just 2.4 children per woman. In the UK, that rate is just 1.7 children. When a country drops below 2.1 children per family, the population will eventually shrink.

2. Human cloning could lead to medical advancements.
The processes of human cloning could help to create new advances in medical science. By creating a duplicated individual, it would become possible to share genetic material which could help to prevent or cure diseases that may have a negative impact on that person’s life. It could create a new line of research that is equivalent to what we see today with embryonic stem cell therapy potential.

3. Human cloning unlocks the benefits of genetic modification.
Human cloning requires a precise form of genetic engineering. Using our current technologies, we would implement enzymes from bacteria to locate genes with in our DNA to create the necessary modifications for duplication. This technology has been in use since 2015, so it is not something from which we are completely unfamiliar. We know of five potential benefits to genetic modification within the human genome that are worth exploring.

• It could help us to begin curing genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or thalassaemia.
• Genetic modification could also help us deal with complex diseases such as schizophrenia or heart disease.
• Human cloning could help us discover new ways to combat the natural aging process, including potential opportunities to stop it.
• Babies would no longer need to go through a genetic lottery before birth to know what their human potentiality would be during their lifetime.
• It could begin to reduce the overall cost of disease treatments around the world.

4. Human cloning could help us to recover faster from devastating injuries.
Interventional orthopedics is a non-surgical option which uses a patient’s own cells to help repair the damage that occurs during a traumatic injury. Sprains or strains to a ligament will typically heal in 4 to 6 weeks with rest, but when a tear occurs, the primary treatment option (especially with an ACL) is to apply a tissue graft at a steeper angle to encourage the healing process.

The current procedure increases a patient’s risk for osteoarthritis and cartilage damage later in life. Through the processes of human cloning, the cells can begin to rebuild on their own. It creates an opportunity for a faster recovery because doctors are duplicating the exact cells that the body requires.

5. Human cloning reduces issues of socioeconomic equality.
According to the Science X Network, up to 10% of children in the developed world are currently taking medication such as Ritalin to help with their poor self-control issues. This medication makes it possible for today’s kids to improve their educational prospects because they have more control over their behaviors. Education, special services, diet, and other social interventions are also used to correct the natural inequality that occurs through the natural reproduction process.

Moving toward human cloning would allow the next generation of children to require fewer interventions throughout their life because they would be genetically equipped to handle the challenges which might come their way.

6. Human cloning could eliminate defective genes and chromosomes.
The statistics on genetic diseases are particularly grim in today’s world. About 1% of the population in the United States will develop a specific disorder with a genetic foundation at some point during their life. Approximately 1 in 100,000 people in the U.S. have Syndrome A at the present time, with 100,000 children worldwide dealing with Syndrome B. The current leading cause of newborn death is due to birth defects. All of these issues could be reduced or eliminated if we were to embrace the benefits that human cloning provides.

7. Human cloning would allow great minds to continue benefiting humankind.
Imagine what Albert Einstein would’ve been able to accomplish if he had 100 years to work instead of a few decades during a single lifetime. Where would we be today if Leonardo da Vinci had access to modern technology with his impressive imagination? Because of human cloning, we would be able to set the stage for humankind’s greatest minds to continue doing their work, albeit as new individuals, which would help our society advance at an even more rapid pace.

Significant contributions to science, music, literature, and the arts are possible because of the technologies involved in human cloning.

8. Human cloning would help us to create more stem cells.
Stem cells are what help to build, maintain, and repair the body throughout our lives. There are processes that these cells perform naturally, allowing them to be manipulated by doctors to repair diseased or damage to organs and tissues. When they are transferred from one person to another, then the recipient sees these cells as being foreign bodies, triggering an immune response. Cloning is a way to create genetically identical cells that could help to create better health outcomes for people, especially if they suffer from a rare genetic disease.

9. Human cloning could eliminate viral epidemics.
The primary goal of treating a virus such as HIV/AIDS is to suppress the mechanisms involved that harm human health. Human cloning could help to replicate a natural resistance to these diseases, disorders, and conditions when discovered in the general population. For as long as disease has existed on our planet, there have been a select few people who have a natural resistance to specific illnesses. A mutation of the CCR5 gene, for example, creates a natural resistance to HIV.

Some people naturally resist the influenza virus better than others. Researchers even found that a group of women in West Africa remained perfectly healthy despite repetitive exposure to the Ebola virus. Human cloning would allow us to take advantage of these natural immunities to create new vaccines, medical treatments, or even children in future generations who would not be forced to struggle with such devastating illnesses.

10. Human cloning could adapt our population to changing planetary conditions.
The processes of evolution allow humankind to begin adapting to changing conditions on our planet. Future generations may be able to adapt to a warming world thanks to the slow adaptations of our genetic profile to this shift. Human cloning could speed up this process to help save lives that would normally be lost through the process of natural selection. We would be able to take the genetic profile of those who are the most resistant to any change, duplicate it, and then spread it to the rest of the population.

11. Human cloning could lead to advancements in organ transplantation.
There are over 100,000 people on organ transplantation wait lists in the United States right now. Roughly 10,000 individuals are waiting for a critical organ, such as a heart. Through the processes of human cloning, it may become possible to duplicate a patient’s needed organ in a laboratory setting to create a viable outcome. This process would also reduce the immune response that occurs after this procedure takes place because the new organ would be based on the cells of the individual instead of a random donation.

12. Human cloning could help us understand the reasons why spontaneous abortions occur.
Spontaneous abortion, which is the medical term for a pregnancy loss or “miscarriage,” is the natural death of a fetus or embryo before it can survive independently. Approximately 80% occur in the first 12 weeks of the pregnancy, with about half of the incidents involving a chromosomal abnormality of some type. Among women who are currently pregnant, up to 1 in 5 may experience this outcome. The processes behind human cloning would help us to understand more about these abnormalities, and then correct them to prevent future losses.

List of the Cons of Human Cloning

1. Human cloning might cause people to age faster instead of slower.
As cells begin to age, the information they obtain is imprinted within their physical structure. When a person begins to grow up, they generate genetic information that their genome maintains. Although we know that cloning is possible, what we do not understand at this present time is whether the information contained within our DNA could cause an artificial duplicate to develop more rapidly than normal.

If genetic age imprinting does apply to the human genome, then providing embryos with older cells could create issues with premature aging. This process could lead to new genetic diseases, potentially increasing the risk for premature death.

2. Human cloning would change how we perceive individuality.
Human cloning creates two or more individuals with the same genetic profile. Each person would have their own brains and bodies, which means they would be like any other family member within a specific genetic profile. Although each person will develop uniquely based on their circumstances, there would still be issues with individuality because of the physical similarities that exist. Other people who are not involved with the cloning process could begin to treat those who are differently within society, creating a new social class reserved only for those who are genetic duplicates of an “authentic” human.

3. Human cloning would only be available to the wealthy initially.
Although human cloning will eventually help everyone at some level, the first procedures would be available only to those with enough money to take advantage of his potential benefits. There is a general rule in the humankind that says those who have power will do whatever it takes to maintain it. Even if the technologies become affordable to everyone, those who received the benefits first will already have a distinct advantage over those who did not.

We would still have our socioeconomic divides in place, even with this science, because those with money could afford more features, add-ons, or processes than those who are struggling to put food on their table.

4. Human cloning would face the same dangers as animal cloning.
It requires over 100 embryos to create one viable animal clone in many circumstances. Although scientists have successfully brought back an extinct species through the technologies and understanding of the research in this field, the results were less than spectacular. The bucardo, an extinct wild goat, only lived for about 10 minutes after it reached a stage of meaningful life. That is why this process is illegal in most parts of the world today, relying on the research in cloning stem cells as a way to advance the science instead of duplicating entire individuals.

5. Human cloning will always have spiritual, moral, and ethical consequences attached to it.
There will always be physical risks to humans associated with the artificial cloning process. People have ethical and moral objections to this science as well. When Dolly the Sheep was born as a clone in 1997, it did not take religious leaders long to speak out against the science from the pulpit. The Roman Catholic church is against human cloning of any kind, and they have held that position since 1987. Jewish leaders do not necessarily see a fertilized embryo as having full human status.

These debates will never go away. Some people have no problem with the idea of creating human clones. Others will be fundamentally opposed to this science for a lifetime. This difference of opinion would create additional rifts in society that could become problematic in the future.

6. Human cloning attempts have been mostly unsuccessful.
When we look at the processes of genetic treatments and their outcomes, more than 90% of the efforts taken to treat humans have resulted in failure. Even when there is a successful medical treatment using genetic techniques, the individual typically needs to keep taking their treatment over the course of their entire life to continue experiencing the benefits of this technology and research. This disadvantage may go away as our understanding of this topic increases, but it is something that we must consider before advancing to the next steps as well.

7. Human cloning could contaminate our DNA diversity.
Although newborns go through a series of “chance” developments during their embryonic development stage, having a higher level of genetic diversity within human populations is beneficial to the overall health of our species. When we stay locked in closed genetic groups, then our DNA becomes contaminated with higher levels of mutations. This outcome creates a higher risk of disease later in life.

We have already seen this issue play out with the Ashkenazi Jewish population. There are five common genetic diseases which are much more prevalent in their community than in general humankind. Cystic Fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, Familial Dysautonomia, Spinal Muscular atrophy, and Gaucher disease are all severe issues with a prevalence rate as high as 1 in 10.

8. Human cloning could lead to exploitation.
The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity suggest that one of the most significant disadvantages of human cloning would be how it could lead to a new exploitation of women. Scientists would need to manufacture enough cloned embryos to create a sufficient number of stem cell lines that are viable. Women would need to be injected with medication that would help them to ovulate rapidly, and then undergo an invasive procedure to extract the eggs. Even under current circumstances, up to 5% of patients experience hyperstimulation that leads to ongoing abdominal pain and even infertility in rare cases.

9. Human cloning would initially target women who are struggling financially.
The women who would be willing to take on the health risks involved with egg harvesting procedures are those who are struggling financially. These women are not seeking to have children. They want the money associated with the procedure instead. Advanced Cell Technology paid up to $4,500 to each woman who donated eggs for their failed cloning experiments already. Amping up the research in this field would require an approach that was similar as a way to access the genetic materials that are necessary.

10. Human cloning creates people as a means to an end.
It is unethical to view humans, regardless of their age, as a means to an end. Even people who support the development of stem cells and embryonic research are opposed to the idea of creating embryos specifically for the purpose of research or to produce medical outcomes for another person. When we start to research human cloning, this is exactly what we are doing. Activated cells are still part of the human experience. Therapeutic cloning might provide medical information that we can use in the future, but the costs may be too high to see any advantages happening from this process.

11. Human cloning would change how we grieve.
Imagine a world where parents lose their child to tragic circumstances. Instead of embracing the natural grieving process, human cloning would suggest that the genetic materials could be used to create a duplicate. Although the clone would be a different individual, some parents may not treat them as such. It could create shifts in our society that alter the very way we approach the unforeseen moments of life. There is even the possibility of this science devaluing human life. Did you lose someone you love? Then create another person to limit your emotional reaction.

These human cloning pros and cons are essential to review because science is slowly progressing toward this outcome. It may be a process that becomes available in our lifetimes. When we reach this new plateau, there will be several philosophical and moral questions that each person must answer on their own. Do people have a soul? Is there a God? What happens when we die? If we can begin to find the answers today, then tomorrow’s technology will not experience implementation delays.

Hydrogen is the simplest element that we know of in the universe today. One atom contains just a single proton and electron. That also means it is the most plentiful element of which we have access today. Despite this abundance, it does not occur naturally on our planet as a gas. It is always combined with other elements, such as H20 creating water thanks to its combination with oxygen.

What is unique about hydrogen is that you can also find it in several organic compounds. Hydrocarbons make up many of our fuels, including propane, natural gas, and gasoline. Using the process of heat application called reforming, hydrogen can be separated from those hydrocarbons to create the potential for a high-energy fuel cell.

NASA already uses liquid hydrogen as a fuel, propelling rockets and the space shuttles into space with it when the programs were active. Fuel cells with this element powered the electrical systems of these space vehicles, producing water as a clean byproduct that is pure enough to be consumable.

Now we’re looking at ways to adapt this technology to our other lifestyle needs, such as transportation. It could be useful as a source of electricity or heat for buildings. These are the primary advantages and disadvantages of hydrogen fuel cells to consider.

List of the Advantages of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

1. Hydrogen fuel cells do not create harmful emissions when consumed.
When hydrogen fuel cells are consumed to create energy, they only emit warm air and water vapor. This advantage applies for any application of the technology. You can create consumable water through the use of this technology while heating your home, driving your vehicle to work, or putting on your helmet to blast off into space.

The impact of switching from gasoline to a hydrogen fuel cell is nothing short of impressive. Giving this technology to just one vehicle would remove almost 5 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere each year.

2. Hydrogen fuel cells offer a better fuel economy compared to hydrocarbons.
When you compare the fuel efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell compared to a standard tank of gasoline, you will receive about double the mileage on a comparable amount of resources. In practical terms, that means a vehicle with a range of 700 miles on standard unleaded fuel would be able to go almost 1,400 miles if it were equipped with a hydrogen fuel cell. When you add in the advantage of reducing emissions on top of this one, then we can still go about our daily lives effectively without worrying about what we’re doing to the environment.

3. Hydrogen fuel cells offer consistency across every size.
Hydrogen fuel cells offer a consistent performance no matter how big or small they happen to be. This technology performs equally in any situation. That means you can rest assured that your vehicles, home generator, or furnace will operate with reliable consistency with a power output that doesn’t drop off any because of its size. Then there is the fact that with fuel access, this product doesn’t require time to recharge, which means you have the potential for continuous power generation from even the smallest of fuel cells.

4. Hydrogen fuel cells offer a robust safety profile to consider.
Hydrogen fuel cells offer fewer exposure risks to individuals when compared to other fuels and technologies. The only concern for human exposure is the fact that the gas acts as a simple asphyxiant. People need to maintain oxygen levels above 19.5% for adequate breathing. Although hydrogen does combine with other elements to create some significant risk factors, those do not apply with this technology. The primary risk involves a freeze burn when using liquid nitrogen, along with a certain level of flammability that we already take on when using fuel resources.

That means it becomes possible to reduce the exposure risks that come from using refined fuels in many of our vehicles and homes. There are more than 150 different chemicals found in your typical gasoline product. These items include benzene, xylene, and other potential carcinogens. Even breathing fuel vapors can be enough to induce dizziness and headaches.

5. Hydrogen fuel cells can be manufactured without an emissions cost.
When we look at renewable and clean technologies for power, there are still emissions costs that we must pay upfront before we can begin to take advantage of its carbon-reduction tendencies. This “carbon debt” is paid off in 2-5 years (and sometimes longer) of power generation because there are fewer greenhouse gases being generated because of consumption.

Hydrogen fuel cells are different. We can produce them from renewable resources such as water or solar energy. Although it is more expensive to separate hydrogen from water than it is from hydrocarbons, we do have the potential technologies already in place to make this a feasible fuel for our daily needs.

6. Hydrogen fuel cells are a practical technology.
Hydrogen fuel cells are not a technology of the future. It is something that you can go out and purchase right now for your transportation or home heating needs. When you purchase a vehicle that is equipped with this technology (or sign a lease for one), then automakers include three years of fuel as part of the initial purchase. That means some owners never have a need to visit a refueling expense because they’ve paid for it already. Even if you do need to refill your hydrogen fuel cells for driving needs, the equivalent price per energy basis is about $6 per gallon of gasoline.

List of the Disadvantages of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

1. Hydrogen fuel cells might still be harmful to the environment.
In an article that appeared in a 2003 issue of the journal Science, researchers at the California Institute of Technology found that it was possible for hydrogen to create a negative impact on the environment if it were to be released in high quantities, such as what would occur within a hydrogen economy. If the gas were allowed to accumulate, then it could indirectly cause as much as a 10% decrease in the ozone layer.

This disadvantage would occur because the extra hydrogen would mix with the stratospheric air to create more water at higher altitudes, creating a different, yet still potentially devastating impact that may be similar to what CFCs once produced.

2. Hydrogen fuel cells require regulated temperatures for maximum performance.
Hydrogen fuel cells operate efficiently when temperatures are below 212°F. If temperatures rise above this level, which is possible under certain driving conditions, then the efficiency rate of this technology becomes greatly reduced. This disadvantage occurs because the polymer exchange membranes used in this technology do not function correctly when exposed to excessive heat. That is why you are seeing hydrogen-specific models of vehicles introduced to the market with this technology instead of incorporating it on existing cars and trucks.

3. Hydrogen fuel cells are not compatible with some technologies.
It is not possible to store hydrogen like we do gasoline when considering fuel cell technologies. You either have to store the hydrogen as a gas at a very high pressure, up to 700 bars, or you have to maintain it as a liquid at a very low temperature. That means you must either take up a lot of space or consume a lot of energy to maintain this fuel resource. If it is not compressed, then the upper and lower flammability limits of it are 75% and 4% respectively. During a leak, up to 60% of the available product may also combust. That is ultimately why we stopped using dirigibles as a mass-transport system because of what occurred during the Hindenburg disaster.

4. Hydrogen fuel cells experience significant transport losses.
The normal rate of boil-off losses for liquid hydrogen is approximately 20%. When these fuel cells go through the processes of manufacturing and transportation, then the losses may be as high as 50%. Industry professionals already expect a 1% loss each day during transport. This disadvantage means that hydrogen fuel cell manufacturing must occur locally for us to obtain the many benefits it could potentially provide. If there are not enough resources available within the local infrastructure, then some regions will benefit, and others will not. That is why even a state-based or provincial switch to this technology is currently not feasible.

5. Hydrogen fuel cells experience significant transportation and storage costs.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the present cost of automotive hydrogen fuel cell stacks at $53 per kilowatt when manufacturing volumes reach 500,000 units each year. Although that is about 50% lower than what 2006 estimates projected for the transportation and storage costs of this technology, they are still much higher than what we experience with gasoline or other “traditional” fuels.

The Toyota Mirai production sheet specifically states that the System delivers to kilowatts per kilogram with the power output of 114 kW maximum. This implies that the fuel system weight is 57 kg. With the added weight of the storage tanks, that means this technology offers a cost that is higher than gasoline, but lower than electricity from a transportation standpoint.

6. Hydrogen fuel cells may also experience higher liquid fuel transportation costs.
The current pipelines which we use in North America to transport liquid hydrogen to where it is needed were installed with a significant expense. Recent pipeline installations have cost upwards of $200,000 per mile. Although that rate is about 90% less than what it was in the 1990s, the costs can still be significantly higher than what other fuels costs to transport to a consumption destination. That is one of the reasons why the comparative cost per gallon is about double of what the average driver pays for gasoline without applying taxes to the transaction.

7. Hydrogen fuel cells need more development to become a renewable resource.
Although we can create hydrogen from renewable resources, the current infrastructure on our planet does not support these activities. The current supply that we use for the hydrogen fuel cells is developed from the same fossil fuels that we used to create gasoline, natural gas, and propane for consumption. There may be fewer total emissions to consider when using this technology over traditional option, but there is still a cost that must be paid with carbon dioxide and methane releases. Many of the gains that we experience are offset by the current use of hydrocarbons for gas generation.

8. Hydrogen fuel cells are still difficult to purchase.
Toyota is at the forefront of making hydrogen fuel cell technologies available to the general public. The cost of ownership for a Mirai is reasonably affordable if you are in the market for a four-door sedan, but it is still about three times higher than what an entry-level gasoline powered vehicle would cost a family of four. The 2019 model is currently available with a $349 36-month lease and $2,499 that is due at signing. You would then receive up to $15,000 worth of complementary fuel with your agreement. The MSRP is $58,500.

9. Hydrogen fuel cells are currently available in select markets only.
Consumers can only take advantage of hydrogen fuel cell technologies if there is a fueling station close to where they live or work. In the United States, that means you could only purchase this vehicle if you live in California or Oahu. There are only 8 dealers authorized to sell the Toyota Mirai in California, while there is only one location for purchase in Hawaii. This disadvantage may disappear eventually as access to this technology improves, but for now it is a significant barrier for consumers who are interested in reducing their environmental impact without sacrificing their ability to drive.

The pros and cons of hydrogen fuel cells offer us access to an exciting new technology that could one day help us to reduce the number of harmful greenhouse gas emissions that escape into our atmosphere. Moving to a hydrogen economy is not without its fair share of risks. We must find ways to reduce escaping gas into our atmosphere to eliminate the potential issue of ozone reduction. There must be new technologies developed to help us create affordable hydrogen as well. If we can hit these potential milestones, then our future world could look like a very different place – yet still feel very familiar.

An inquisitorial system is a legal process where part of the court, if not the entire court, is actively involved in an investigation of the facts of a case. It is different from an adversarial system where the role of the court is to be an impartial observer, referee, or decision-maker while listening to prosecutors and defendants. It is a system that is used primarily where a civil legal system is in place for a country instead of a common law system.

Under an inquisitorial system, the trial judges become inquisitors who participate actively in public inquiries by questioning defendants, prosecutors, and witnesses. These judges can even order specific items of evidence be examined if they feel that the presentation by any party in the case is inadequate.

As with any other legal system that is implemented by a society, there are specific pros and cons to examine when looking at an inquisitorial system for civil and criminal justice. These are the crucial points to review.

List of the Pros of an Inquisitorial System

1. It reduces the advantages of wealth within the justice system.
If your society engages in an adversarial system of justice, then the quality of your outcome is dependent upon the experience of your lawyer. The people who have the most money in adversarial systems typically experience a different outcome when compared to those who must use public attorneys or represent themselves during a proceeding. The inquisitorial system eliminates this benefit because the judge(s) in the case have the option to question and investigate just as law enforcement and the lawyers do during the proceedings.

The examples of wealthy defendants receiving preferred sentencing in the United States are too numerous to list. Adversarial systems often create two subcategories: one for the rich and the other for the poor. 60% of all people in the U.S. prison system right now are an ethnic or racial minority, with the vast majority of them coming from households living below the poverty line.

2. It reduces judgments against people which are driven be emotions.
According to a 2013 report published by Pacific Standard Magazine, jurors who experience moral outrage on some level during a case are more likely to convict a defendant compared to those who do not experience this emotional reaction. Under an adversarial system of justice, the goal of the prosecutor is to elicit this response when they present a case because it increases the likelihood of a successful outcome. Defendants attempt to temper this response to have a jury decide in their favor.

With an inquisitorial system of justice, there is another line of defense against this emotional decision-making process. The judge(s) can help to determine the facts of a case so that decisions are based on logic instead of feelings.

3. It reduces bias within the system of justice.
When there are more people involved with a legal case, then there are a variety of perspectives that are brought in to review the circumstances that occurred. This process eliminates some of the unintentional bias that can occur in adversarial systems. Each party contributes their opinion and observation within an inquisitorial system, allowing for the facts to decide what occurs instead of biased opinions, passionate speeches, or a general dislike of the person who is accused of something.

The adversarial system in the United States puts the lifetime risk of a black man going to prison at 1 in 3. For Latino men, the odds are 1 in 6. White men face a 1 in 17 risk. For women, the disparity is even higher. About 1 in every 18 black women will experience imprisonment at least once compared to 1 in every 111 white women.

4. It is a system which does not exempt anyone.
An inquisitorial system makes sure that no one receives any special treatment. There are zero exemptions offered under this design. Everyone gets asked the same questions when they have a case presented before the court, whether they are homeless or the President of the United States. The truth of each answer is then verified through rigorous work to determine the actual events that happened, and if there are any civil or criminal liabilities which may apply to the situation.

The adversarial system in the United States does not offer this level of clarity. In the U.S., the Office of Legal Counsel argues that the impeachment power of Congress is the only way to handle a President who operates outside of the law.

5. It is a system which features independent review.
One of the most unique aspects of the inquisitorial system is that each group that investigates an issue will work independently to achieve an outcome of truth. Although there can be cooperation amongst the various individuals working a case, they are separate teams working toward an outcome by themselves instead of together as a group. Some systems may require complete agreement in the outcome from all of the groups working a case before a case proceeds any further.

6. It must resolve all factual uncertainties before coming to a resolution.
The inquisitorial system is a system of continuous investigation that is conducted first by the police, and then more extensively by a magistrate or judge who serves as the lead investigator in many systems. Because the judge(s) are placed in this role, they are tasked by the government to exhaust every effort to settle any factual uncertainties which may exist in a case. There must be sufficient evidence of guilt to proceed. Although in some cases this need may lead to pressure on the defendant to confess, this system seeks to minimize manipulation to create specific outcomes.

7. It allows the judicial system to play a substantial role in the proceedings.
One of the most significant advantages of the inquisitorial system is that the court moves from being an impartial observer to an active participant. Instead of trying to weigh the validity of both arguments or place the issue in the hands of a jury alone, the focus is on achieving a justifiable outcome that fits the facts of the case. Even if there are minor procedural errors which occur during the case, they can be ignored if the purpose of achieving justice is the final outcome.

8. It makes a distortion of evidence easier to detect.
An inquisitorial system makes it much easier for misrepresentations, exaggerations, or other forms of evidentiary distortion to be detected because there are additional investigatory groups involved in the proceeding. The court can find these dubious practices and then dismiss them, allowing everyone involved to look at the facts first. There is no reason to look for “creative arguments” because the focus remains solely on the facts involved during the incident in question. That can make it much easier for all parties (including the defendant) to find a fair outcome.

9. It balances out the availability of resources.
In the typical adversarial setup, the prosecuting parties have access to a full suite of government resources and services. They represent society at some level, which means the monetary and research resources are usually much greater than what the average defendant would be able to put together. Although some defense teams can be competitive outside of the inquisitorial system, this option makes it possible for all evidence to be considered, even if it favors the defendant, because each party is tasked to be factfinders instead of argument makers.

10. It allows defendants to tell their story.
Witnesses in an inquisitorial system can tell their story without the need to respond to adversarial questions that may try to discredit their character. The goal of each story is to shed light on an additional set of facts that investigators can review to determine an accurate outcome occurs in each case. Although more people can be contacted by the court and law enforcement because of where they exist on the periphery of a case, the overall goal to achieve an accurate result can often outweigh the potential disadvantages which exist.

List of the Cons of an Inquisitorial System

1. It does not completely remove the concept of bias out of the justice system.
Although the purpose of an inquisitorial system is to remove as much bias as possible from the court, justice does not always occur under this structure. Certain communities may have a widespread feeling, belief, or fear of specific cultures, ethnicities, or behaviors that lead them to make biased decisions as a group. If the prosecutor and the judge feel the same way about a defendant, then both may do everything in their power to secure a conviction based on their mutual distaste for the circumstances involved.

2. It lengthens the time required to obtain an outcome in the justice system.
Because the court becomes involved with the investigation of the case in an inquisitorial system, the amount of time required to reach an outcome can expand significantly. Adversarial systems can sometimes take several years to reach a conclusion as it is. There are cases under this system which take more than a decade – and even then, there may be appeals and motions permitted that extend it even further.

3. It reduces the opportunities available for someone to defend themselves.
Because there are two trained, professional groups who are reviewing the circumstances of every case (and a third if prosecutors are involved), it becomes almost impossible for an untrained individual to defend themselves under an inquisitorial system as they could in an adversarial system. It works against them because there are 2-3 different perspectives looking at an incident, while they must rely on their own circumstances.

4. It is a system where the truth is already decided before the trial.
Under many inquisitorial systems, the investigation is regarded with the same weight as an adversarial system regards a trial by jury. All of the parties which look into an incident are usually state-sponsored (even the defendant’s representation), which means there is not as much independence available to someone who must stand before the court. That means people still investigate with their preconceived notions, only with the option to create a presumption of guilt before a defendant ever receives a hearing.

5. It requires investigators to ask the right questions to achieve a fair outcome.
The quality of the justice system is heavily dependent upon the experience and perspective of each investigating party within an inquisitorial system. People must want to get to the truth to reach a fair outcome. There are many times when questions are not asked when they should be, creating a circumstance where the only effort is to reach a statement of innocence or guilt instead of trying to determine the facts of a case.

6. It does not provide a right to silence like an adversarial system.
The Miranda Warning in the United States offers a clear and direct set of rights that are communicated to a potential defendant. The first is that the individual has the right to remain silent because anything a person says can and will be used against them in a court of law. Under an inquisitorial system, this right does not exist. If you are accused of something, then every component of the justice system must work to secure a just outcome. That means there is the possibility of having someone convict themselves based on unintended statements if they are deemed by the investigatory group as being factual.

7. It can place the final judgment in the hands of a single individual.
Judge Judy is an excellent example of what an inquisitorial system of justice looks like. She questions witnesses on her own, often without any lawyers present in her TV courtroom. The plaintiff and defendant both submit briefs stating their side of the case, then she questions each party to determine if someone is telling the truth or not. This process can place the final judgment of a defendant in the hands of one person, which means their bias can influence the final decision.

8. It requires people to trust in the government to achieve a just result.
When you turn the justice system into a detached, neutral process instead of an adversarial one, then you do begin to remove some of the inequalities that occur in society. The only problem is that the way to achieve this benefit is to have everyone trust that the government has their needs set as a top priority. If there is any distrust by the general population, then this system of justice will never be seen as an entirely beneficial process. That is why it tends to exist on TV in the United States instead of in the general system of criminal justice.

9. It is a system which can be heavily influenced by corruption.
Some people refer to an inquisitorial system as a “kangaroo court” because the process of a trial can be present for show only. Investigators can go into a case with a predetermined outcome based on pressures received from the government, state, or other influential groups who want specific actions to be taken against an individual. This process can speed up the time of the investigation dramatically as well, sometimes securing convictions in days when the there is a specific verdict desired by the overall group.

The pros and cons of an inquisitorial system show us that when it is implemented correctly, there is less manipulation of the system because everyone is treated fairly. It also requires an objective approach by all parties, including the court, to create an outcome which is representative of the facts in the case. Although the goal is to focus on the truth, this system makes it possible for investigators to create their own definition of it at the expense of the defendant.