Advancement of Information and Quality Ideas in Society

Although it is the primary responsibility of those that seek information to properly acquire and utilize it by filtering out bias and misinformation, initial information providers can make these tasks easier and increase the efficiency of information collection by presenting information in a straightforward and organized manner. In general there are three categories of information presentation based on the intent and motivation of the provider: review, problem solving or debate. Each presentation method has its own strengths and weaknesses that need to be explored.

Information in a review form is the simplest means of transmission because there is no motivator the information is simply presented without opinion. In this style the goal of the presenter is to ensure as much accurate information about the given topic is made available to whoever wishes to acquire it. There are no judgments made about the information presented, outside of its factual accuracy, and no significant attempt to apply the information for any type of solution. There are three key points to maximizing the importance of distributing this type of information. First, define the exact context of the subject matter for presentation. Second, create a hierarchy outline of what information would be required to or aid in understanding the presented information and what information could be better understood after understanding the presented information. Third, the easiest step to say and most difficult to do, present all of the relevant and accurate information on the defined subject.

Currently the online dictionary Wikipedia does an excellent job at covering step one and a good portion of step three largely because of the efforts of the entire global community who continue to add information and continually check the accuracy of that information. Wikipedia has an advantage in raw information availability over print material, which should be taken advantage of when supplying information without application. This advantage allows Wikipedia users to continue to add information without having to subtract information that may not be as important, but still relevant.

Thus the information library regarding the particular subject matter is continually increased increasing the probability that individuals who seek out this information will find a lack of gaps in the overall amount of information pertinent to the overall subject. Two elements that Wikipedia could incorporate to improve its already significantly useful information distribution system would be to integrate step two indicating what specific knowledge would enhance the ability for a user to understand the current topic. Also the addition of a more specific categorization regarding what information is essential to understanding the basics of the topic at hand and what information is supplemental and what exactly does it teach.

Problem solving is a motivation that strives to solve a problem and presents all of the necessary information and methodology to solve that problem. The goal of problem solving is to first find at least one significant and workable solution and then to identify the optimal solution among all solutions, if multiple ones are found. When presenting information with this motivation the first and third step utilized in the review motivation is presented to act as a base for understanding the solutions presented later. Next the provider presents a number of different solutions to the problem highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Unlike debate none of these solutions are presented with bias or any level of emotional favoritism, but instead just “cold hard” facts. Defining strengths and weaknesses for certain solutions can be difficult because responses to certain problems may rely on anticipating how outside parties will react which, despite what a number of individuals want to believe, are frequently unknown. In such cases it is best to simply present what would be the best course of action for the particular party based on how the presenter interprets the behavior of that particular party. Due to the lack of bias it is important for the presenter to clearly define the boundary conditions that will be applied to the presented solutions.

Solving problems can also be difficult because if one wants to create elaborate and specific solutions significant details will have to be provided. For smaller problems that only affect a single individual or a very small community these solutions can be crafted by a single person; however, when addressing large societal problems it is very difficult to expect a single person to devise a detailed solution methodology that will be successful both because of factors that may evade said person due to a lack of experience and knowledge or just the pure labor intensity of documenting the steps themselves.

Therefore, to solve the large much more meaningful problems successfully numerous parties need to study the issue and contribute solution pieces which can then be incorporated into a grand solution. Unfortunately this mindset for creating effective solutions has been abandoned in most sectors, especially the political sector, in recent years in favor of entire solutions being created by individuals who derive their experiences from only a small collection of knowledge and life events. Not surprisingly solutions born from these individuals are ineffective and a waste of time and resources, yet because they speak to a specific group of individuals egotism allows them to gain undeserved traction.

Currently there is no Wikipedia-like database that focuses on solving problems using the aforementioned methodology, but such a database could be and should be created. Overall the creation of such a database would be an extremely useful tool when making decisions and drawing conclusions on complicated matters such as foreign or domestic policy, economics and technology. With access to such a database of potential solutions for various concerns and problems it would allow the citizenry of a given country more control to pressure their government if they believe the government is not attempting to solve a given problem with the best solution. Knowledge is indeed power and it is time that people give themselves the means to acquire and wield that power in a more effective manner.

Debate is obviously driven by intent to convince others that the viewpoint of the presenter regarding information or a solution is correct. This method can be a useful motivation because those that utilize it are typically very passionate about the particular subject at hand and can potentially be receptive to new information about the subject. However, it can also be dangerous and counter-productive for the probability that the presented information contains unnecessary bias is much higher than review or problem solving motivation. Also the presenter may be invested in his/her particular viewpoint to an extent where it will not listen to any opposing evidence and/or even be willing to carry out an inferior solution just to get his/her way even if it creates negative consequences for others. Unfortunately these negatives have come to cast a large pall over the positives in modern times for debate information motivations.

Since the goal of debate is to convince listening parties that a particular viewpoint is the correct one, the presenter should focus heavily on highlighting key issues that demonstrate the strength of that position relative to the applied realistic boundary conditions. Significant weaknesses should also be identified and their flaws mitigated through the use of facts and logic regarding the existing boundary conditions that will be present when the solution is applied and during the source of its application. One of the worst things for an individual can do when questioned about a weakness in an argument is to utilize cognitive dissidence or something similar to avoid acknowledging it because it is impossible to improve an idea if one ignores its legitimate problems. The point in a debate is not to “win” the discussion, but to produce the best idea that matches an individual’s core beliefs; being stubborn and clinging to a clearly flawed idea disrupts the very point of a debate in the first place and cheapens the beliefs of those who retain these flawed ideas.

Overall more details can certainly be provided in the discussion of these different motivations behind information distribution, but the purpose of this post was simply to introduce the concept and argue for a more public venue of organization for the problem solving perspective. Current organization largely involves various scattered message boards or blogs (like this one) that offer little efficiency for those new to the topic at hand and can become environments of groupthink or needless conflict. Society is facing bigger problems as it continues to grow both from itself, wealth inequality and food distribution inefficiencies to name a few, and from the environment, human-induced global warming. These problems demand a concerted effort to develop effective solutions that cannot be solely assigned to academia. Therefore, it is important for the public to actively involve themselves in the development of these solutions and one of the most important steps is creating a public arena that is able to sort through the bias of arguments and apply the contents to reviews and problem solving.

Looking for the Truth Behind the Health Value of Saturated Fat versus Carbohydrates

One of the more dynamic areas of modern research is nutrition and how it relates to biology. While in the past the more popular medium of discussion was through various diet/weight loss books, now the question of saturated fats and their overall influence on health has shifted to areas of more stringent study. Through most of the modern age of nutrition it has been viewed by the majority that saturated fats were largely negative and should be avoided as much as possible. Even the USDA recommends less than 10% of calories be derived from saturated fats1,2 largely based on the premise that increasing saturated fat consumption increases detrimental health outcomes including cardiovascular heart disease (CHD).3-5 However, there are individuals that believe this recommendation is inappropriate for it has not been clearly demonstrated empirically that increased consumption of saturated fat increases CHD or other negative health outcomes.

In fact some cite that while increasing saturated fat does increase total cholesterol, which is a characteristic for an increased rate of CHD, the rate of increase for high density lipoprotein (HDL) exceeds the rate of increase for low density lipoprotein (LDL), thus increasing the HDL/LDL ratio which is thought to be a more important factor to overall health than total cholesterol.6 Therefore, in the eyes of these individuals increasing saturated fatty acid (SFA) consumption in an equal caloric substitution over other types of nutrients like carbohydrates does not increase CHD risk and may even lower it.7-10 Overall the problem with both positions regarding the health effects of saturated fat is that most analysis fails to appreciate the specificity that addressing such an issue demands.

The crux of the question does involve the level at which one consumes saturated fats, but there are four central questions that govern the importance of that change:

First, different individual SFAs do not have the same biological effects despite similar molecular constructs. For example some epidemiological evidence demonstrates that stearic acid is the most detrimental SFA in terms of increasing the probability of CHD.11 Also despite the difficulty distinguishing between the overall effects of different SFAs palmitic acid is thought to be more detrimental to overall health than lauric acid. Not surprisingly in overall cholesterol raising effects stearic acid is neutral while all other long-chain acids increase both HDL and LDL levels versus low quality carbohydrates.12 There are no definitive conclusions regarding the influence of short and medium-chain SFAs due to a lack of study.

One of the reasons stearic and palmitic acid are so bad is that they can provide a negative feedback on acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC), the enzyme responsible for the catalysis of acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA which is utilized to increase the size of acyl chains reducing palmitic acid processing.13 In some respects there is little difference between trans-fatty acids and these two SFAs.

One would anticipate that it would be difficult to separate different types of SFAs with respect to what foods an individual consumes due to the combination of various SFAs in foods. However, it is feasible to distinguish certain specific foods that have higher percentages of certain SFAs over others and make broad dietary suggestions about those food items. For example palm oil and coconut oil have very high in palmitic and lauric acid concentrations respectively. Therefore, when studying the difference between SFAs and carbohydrates it is important to track what foods are consumed to ensure objectivity regarding certain SFA specific overload foods.

Second, when changing the amount of consumed SFAs some other molecule will replace those calories, thus it is important to consider the nature of that replacement and its specificity. Of the four issues that will be discussed this issue of substitution is the most studied one. There are a wide variety of elements that can replace saturated fat in a diet: protein, poly-unsaturated fat, mono-unsaturated fat, high glycemic index (low-quality/processed) carbohydrates, low glycemic index (high-quality) carbohydrates, “normal”/unsaturated fat and trans fats. Preliminary studies support the belief that rates of CHD decrease when replacing SFAs with poly-unsaturated fat, mono-unsaturated fat and “normal” fat.3,14,15 CHD rates increase when replacing SFAs with trans fats and refined/processed carbohydrates.3,16 Note that the glycemic index is utilized to measure how quickly blood sugar rise after consuming a given food and uses glucose as a upper level (100).

However, with regards to the carbohydrates since a large number of the carbohydrates that are consumed in modern society are of high glycemic variety if one were to guess it stands to reason that most, if not all, carbohydrate studies involved processed carbohydrates instead of quality carbohydrates. For example some proponents of SFAs like to cite studies that conclude a switch from SFAS to carbohydrates increases CHD probability. However, these studies do not typically differentiate between carbohydrate types. There is a large biological difference between low glycemic and high glycemic carbohydrates; without differentiating between carbohydrates any results born from substituting SFAs with a caloric equivalent amount of carbohydrates are inherently suspect. Think of it this way anyone who concludes that there is no biological and nutritional difference between consuming 150 calories of traditional rolled oats oatmeal versus 150 calories of Twinkie should not have their opinion taken into consideration.

In addition substitution studies must take appropriate caloric equivalency into account. For example if SFAs makes up 300 calories of a person’s daily caloric intake suitable comparison would demand that some percentage of that value be replaced with an equal value of the replacement (carbohydrates, poly unsaturated fat, etc.). It is sometimes difficult to track this equivalency feature if individuals are simply trying to recall what they consume over a given period of time versus keeping a food diary and having nutritionists correct for imbalances. Finally there is almost no information pertaining to replacing SFAs with protein or low glycemic index carbohydrates with regards to influence on CHD rates further limiting the value of substitution studies, an important exclusion that must be corrected for a definitive statement can be made regarding substitution. In the current environment the burden of proof is on those that believe SFAs are neutral or even better for health than processed carbohydrates, thus they need to ensure the quality of these substitution studies if they want to make the above contention.

Third, one of the biggest problems with comparing health effects between consumption of different food elements is a lack of comparison between subject microbiota. In short the microbiota is the concentration and type of bacteria population in an individual’s gastro-intestinal system. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the type of bacteria in an individual’s intestinal system have a significant impact on the ability to process and absorb nutrients.17-21 One of the biggest comparisons in microbiota is between Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, which generally identifies obese individuals and non-obese individuals where Firmicutes is at larger concentrations in the obese and Bacteroidetes is at larger concentrations in the non-obese, usually with a 100%+ change.17,18 Note that this relationship is obviously not perfect, but is generally a good rule of thumb.

Evidence has shown that prolonged high SFAs feeding induced inflammation, impaired barrier function and changed microbiota profiles.22 The change in profiles lead to increased concentrations of Firmicutes and Oscillibacter and reduced concentrations of Bacteroidetes and Lactobacillus, thus high SFA feedings change the microbiota to one more seen in obese individuals. Clearly obesity is known for numerous detrimental health conditions, thus possessing a similar microbiota can be rationally viewed as a detrimental outcome versus a beneficial one.

Gut microbiota is important relative to carbohydrate processing as well in the rates and what types of carbohydrates are digestible.23,24 Fermentation occurring in the gut also leads to an increase in GLP-1 synthesis and insulin metabolism, thus rats fed a high fiber diet have higher plasma GLP-1, insulin and c-peptide levels after an oral glucose load.17 Various bacteria breakdown carbohydrates in fermentation reactions producing short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) like acetate, propionate and butyrate.25 Butyrate largely provides energy for colonic epithelia, propionate is taken up by the liver and is a precursor for gluconeogenesis, protein synthesis and liponeogenesis26,27 and acetate is metabolized by peripheral tissues and used as a substrate for cholesterol synthesis.28

The ratio of which SCFAs are produced is largely dependent on the ratio of bacteria in the gut. Evidence suggests that Firmicutes is able to produce about 25% more SCFAs than Bacteroidetes.19,20 Firmicutes appears to produce more butyrate and propionate with Bacteroidetes producing more acetate.29 There is question whether or not higher amounts of SCFAs are linked to obesity, but the evidence favors the affirmative: that increased SCFAs increase obesity probability.18,21,30 Also Firmicutes may increase the rate of malonyl-CoA activation over Bacteroidetes, which reduces the rate of carnitine palmitoyl transferase-1 reducing the amount of mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation.31 Overall while there is still a lot of information that needs to be deduced from the relationship between microbiota and health in general, especially obesity, the exclusion of any relationship in substitution studies is inappropriate.

Fourth, with regards to carbohydrate substitution, physical and aerobic conditioning of the research subject must be taken into consideration. Consistent exercise results in the increased direct and indirect consumption of carbohydrates as an energy source. Indirect consumption occurs through the increased production of specific enzymes, which favor the conversion of certain carbohydrates to glycogen versus SFAs like stearic or palmitic acid. Basically if one is substituting carbohydrates for SFAs in overweight and/or inactive research subjects the biological reduction of SFA consumption is heavily handicapped because the substituted carbohydrates are less likely to be used as short-term energy, but instead are converted to SFAs for long term energy storage.

One of the important elements when distinguishing between biological effects of SFAs and carbohydrates is the synthesis and consumption of glycogen. Glycogen is a multi-branched polysaccharide consisting of various glucose derivative molecules bound together and is used for long-term energy storage in a more compact form over triglycerides.

Glycogen is principally isolated within muscles, the liver and red blood cells32,33 and its rate of storage is dependant on physical training, basal metabolic rate and eating habits. Storage begins when blood glucose levels rise and insulin concentrations increase stimulating the action of hepatocytes leading to glycogen synthesis. As long as glucose and insulin remain in high relative concentrations glycogen synthesis continues. In periods of low glucose the pancreas secretes glucagons which catalyzes glycogenolysis.

Not surprisingly glycogen synthesis is exogonic, where UTP reacting with glucose-1-phosphate to drive the formation of UDP-glucose that eventually combine to lengthen glycogen through catalyzation by glycogen synthase forming from a base created by glycogenin.33 Glycogen consumption is endergonic where sections are cleaved by glycogen phosphorylase to produce glucose-1-phosphate monomers, which are later converted to glucose-6-phosphate by phosphoglucomutase. Glucose-6-phosphate produced from glycogen can enter the glycolysis pathway, the pentose phosphate pathway or be dephosphorylated back to glucose.33

A history of exercise, especially endurance training, enhances lipid and carbohydrate oxidation and decrease SNS activity during present time exercising in part due to increased muscle glycogenolysis and increased recruitment of skeletal muscle.34-38 Increasing exercise intensity increases the level of energy demand from the muscles and brain resulting in a faster crossover from lipids to carbohydrates as a source of energy. While some believe that there are special exercise-dietary regimens to enhance muscle glycogen storage/consumption rates when appropriate, there is no doubt that individuals who exercise consistently have higher rates of glycogen conversion of glucose and other sugars versus rates of glucose conversion to SFAs opposed to the rates found in overweight or obese individuals.34,39,40

One of the advantages of this difference is in the short period of time after exercise (24 hrs) is that rate of glycogen synthesis is indiscriminate the type of carbohydrate, be it simple or complex.40 Note that there is still an insulin concentration rise for simple carbohydrates over complex, but while the increase for complex is smaller the duration is longer.40 The fate of consumed carbohydrates is also influenced by the time between consumption and exercise.41 Therefore, individuals that are “in shape” are more likely to burn off consumed carbohydrates versus storing them as either glycogen or SFAs. Again comparison studies between SFAs and substitutions, especially carbohydrates, tend to exclude the influence of exercise.

Another side issue that must be considered when making comparison studies between SFAs and substitutes is the concentration of epinephrine due to its lipolytic, glycogenolytic and insulin-suppressive effects.42 Past training through exercise seems to reduce epinephrine concentrations in both at rest and during present exercise.42,43 Therefore, measurement of epinephrine needs to be conducted to act as a control point to make more accurate comparisons in substitution studies.

Overall there are clearly scientific and accuracy concerns regarding claims made by individuals who believe that SFAs are no more harmful to CHD rates than carbohydrates. Unfortunately such claims are typically made by individuals who are trying to justify a certain nutritional lifestyle versus individuals who actually care about proper nutrition. This is not to say that all forms of carbohydrates are guaranteed to be healthier than SFAs; the problem is that SFAs proponents have not produced evidence to demonstrate this conclusion that satisfies the four above concerns. Therefore, until this evidence is produced it is irresponsible of individuals to suggest that substituting SFAs for carbohydrates produces no detrimental change to CHD rates.


--
Citations –

1. Hoenselaar, R. “Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease: The discrepancy between the scientific literature and dietary advice.” Nutrition. 2012. 28:118-123.

2. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Guide or the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Eating Plan. http://www.unco.edu/shc/topics/dietaryguidelines.htm

3. Jakobsen, et Al. “Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies.” Am J Clin Nutr. 2009. 89:1425–32.

4. Dayton, S, et Al. “A controlled clinical trial of a diet high in unsaturated fat in preventing complications of atherosclerosis.” Circulation. 1969. 40(suppl 2):1–63.

5. Turpeinen, O, et Al. “Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Finnish Mental Hospital Study.” Int J Epidemiol. 1979. 8:99–118.

6. Prospective Studies Collaboration. “Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.” Lancet. 2007. 370:1829–39.

7. Astrup, A, et Al. “The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011. 93:684-688.

8. Frantz, I Jr, et Al. “Test of effect of lipid lowering by diet on cardiovascular risk. The Minnesota Coronary Survey.” Arteriosclerosis. 1989. 9:129–35.

9. Siri-Tarino, P, et Al. “Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010. 91:535–546.

10. Skeaff, C, and Miller, J. “Dietary fat and coronary heart disease: summary of evidence from prospective cohort and randomised controlled trials.” Ann Nutr Metab. 2009. 55:173–201.

11. Hu, F, et Al. “Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1999. 70:1001–8.

12. Hunter, J, Zhang, J, Kris-Etherton, P. “Cardiovascular disease risk of dietary stearic acid compared with trans, other saturated, and unsaturated fatty acids: a systematic review.” Am J Clin Nutr. 2010. 91:46–63

13. Wikipedia - Palmitic acid Entry.

14. Laaksonen, D, et Al. “Prediction of cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men by dietary and serum linoleic and polyunsaturated fatty acids.” Arch Intern Med. 2005. 165:193–9.

15. Soinio, M, et Al. “Dietary fat predicts coronary heart disease events in subjects with type 2 diabetes.” Diabetes Care. 2003. 26:619–24.

16. Danaei, G, et Al. “The preventable causes of death in the United States: comparative risk assessment of dietary, lifestyle, and metabolic risk factors.” PLoS Med. 2009. 6:e1000058.

17. Cani, P, and Delzenne, N. “The role of the gut microbiota in energy metabolism and metabolic disease.” Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2009. 15:1546-1558.

18. Ley, R, et Al. “Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity.” Nature. 2006. 444:1022-3.

19. Schwietz, A, et Al. “Microbiota and SCFA in lean and overweight healthy subjects.” Obesity. 2009. 18:190-195.

20. Bajzer, M, and Seeley, R. “Physiology: obesity and gut flora.” Nature. 2006. 444:1009–1010.

21. Turnbaugh, P, et Al. “An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest.” Nature. 2006. 444:1027–1031.

22. Lam, Y, et Al. “Increased gut permeability and microbiota change associate with mesenteric fat inflammation and metabolic dysfunction in diet-induced obese mice.” PloS ONE. 2012. 7(3):e34233.

23. Goodlad, R, et Al. “Effects of an elemental diet, inert bulk and different types of dietary fibre on the response of the intestinal epithelium to refeeding in the rat and relationship to plasma gastrin, enteroglucagon, and PYY concentrations.” Gut. 1987. 28: 171-80.

24. Goodlad, R, et Al. “Proliferative effects of 'fibre' on the intestinal epithelium: relationship to gastrin, enteroglucagon and PYY.” Gut. 1987. 28(Suppl): 221-6.

25. Macfarlane, G, and Gibson, G. “Carbohydrate fermentation, energy transduction and gas metabolism in the human large intestine.” In: Mackie RI, White BA (eds). Gastrointestinal Microbiology. Chapman & Hall: New York, USA, 1997. 269–317.

26. Wolever, T, Spadafora, P, and Eshuis, H. “Interaction between colonic acetate and propionate in humans.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1991. 53:681–687.

27. Vernay, M. “Origin and utilization of volatile fatty acids and lactate in the rabbit: influence of the faecal excretion pattern.” Br J Nutr. 1987. 57:371–381.

28. Wolever, T, et Al. “Effect of rectal infusion of short chain fatty acids in human subjects.” Am J Gastroenterol. 1989. 84:1027–1033.

29. Duncan, S, et Al. “Reduced dietary intake of carbohydrates by obese subjects results in decreased concentrations of butyrate and butyrate-producing bacteria in feces.” Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007. 73:1073–1078.

30. Ley, R, et Al. “Obesity alters gut microbial ecology.” PNAS. 2005. 102:11070–11075.

31 Pyra, K, et Al. “Prebiotic Fiber Increases Hepatic Acetyl CoA Carboxylase Phosphorylation and Suppresses Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide Secretion More Effectively When Used with metformin in obese rats.” J. Nutr. 2012. 142:213–220.

32. Moses, S, Bashan, N, and Gutman, A. “Glycogen metabolism in the normal red blood cell.” Blood. 1972. 40(6):836–43. PMID 5083874.

33. Miwa, I, and Suzuki, S. “An improved quantitative assay of glycogen in erythrocytes”. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry. 2002. 39(Pt 6): 612–3. doi:10.1258/000456302760413432.

34. Brooks, G, and Mercier, J. “Balance of carbohydrate and lipid utilization during exercise: the" crossover" concept.” Journal of Applied Physiology. 1994. 76(6):2253-2261.

35. Davies, K, Packer, L, and Brooks, G. “Biochemical adaptation of mitochondria, muscle and whole-animal respiration to endurance training.” Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1981. 209:539-554.

36. Holloszy, J. “Endurance training decreases plasma glucose turnover and oxidation during moderate-intensity exercise.” J. Appl. Physiol. 1990. 68:990-996.

37. Henriksson, J, and Reitman, J. “Time course of changes in human muscle succinate dehydrogenase and cytochrome oxidase activities and maximal oxygen uptake with physical activity and inactivity.” Acta Physiol. Stand. 1977. 99:91-97.

38. Kirkwood, S. P., L. Packer, and G. A. Brooks. Effects of endurance training on a mitochondrial reticulum in limb skeletal muscle. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 255: 80-88, 1987.

39. Sumida, K, and Donovan, C. “Enhanced gluconeogenesis from lactate in perfused livers after endurance training.” J. App. Physiol. 1993. 74:782-787.

40. Costill, D, et Al. “The role of dietary carbohydrates in muscle glycogen resynthesis after strenuous running.” Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1981. 34:1831-1836.

41. Jeukendrup, A. “High-carbohydrate versus high-fat diets in endurance sports.” Sportmedizin und Sporttraumatologie. 2003. 51(1):17–23.

42. Brooks, G, et Al. “Increased dependence on blood glucose after acclimatization to
4,300 m.” J. Appl. Physiol. 1991. 70:919-927.

43. Deuster, P, et Al. “Hormonal and metabolic responses of untrained, moderately trained, and highly trained men to three exercise intensities.” Metabolism. 1989. 38:141-148.

Legitimizing the Modern Presidential Debate

Modern debates have become akin to campaign stump speeches with the sole purpose of stating talking points to ensure seal-clapping approval from one’s base while staying board as possible to avoid direct criticism from opponents. Unfortunately the revive the debates of Douglas-Lincoln is not feasible any longer because candidates no longer have the intelligence to express ideas in such a detailed manner or the guts to expose themselves and their ideas in bare-naked specifics. Therefore, to lament days long gone is a needless exercise which wastes time. However, simply because society cannot return to the past does not mean it must settle for the sham confrontational pageantry and typical hollow words associated with modern debates.

A better debate format would consist of a broad overarching topic (economics, environment, foreign policy, education, energy, etc.) with four separate and unique questions pertaining to that topic. The moderator would write the questions prior to the debate. The goal of debate is to convince others of the superiority of a certain position and the failures of other contrasting positions. Superiority of a given position over others can only be genuinely adjudicated by understanding the differences between those positions and how those differences would theoretically interact with the boundary conditions and variables presented by society in reality. This debate format would require sufficient time to explain these differences.

Candidates would have a total talk time of fifteen minutes for each question with a two-minute utilization minimum during each speaking session with no ceiling. Basically a candidate could talk for fifteen minutes straight, but would have to talk for at least two minutes. When a candidate has less than two minutes of talk time remaining he/she must use at least 25% of the available time. To ensure efficiency and accuracy offline electronic screens will be available on the podiums of each candidate that will track the question and how much time each candidate has remaining. These devices would behave like electronic chess clocks where after a candidate stopped speaking he/she would push a button that would stop the current clock and start his/her opponent’s clock.

The question of whether or not the candidates should be informed of the questions before the debate is an interesting one. Initially it stands to reason that making the questions available is appropriate. Most problems faced by a President are long-term that have been developing over years rather than short-term that materialize in a given moment. With this point and the point of debate itself in mind regarding solutions, choosing a President is not about determining who can think quickest on one’s feet and how much information can be memorized, but to discuss hypotheses and identify the best ideas to solve a particular problem for foreign and domestically. Finally advanced knowledge of the questions will increase the probability that candidates have greater detail in their answers making it easier to differentiate between the core ideas associated in those answers.

However, there is one major concern with letting the candidates know the questions beforehand, the issue of authenticity. With foreknowledge of the questions there is a higher probability that candidates simply regurgitate talking points and stump speeches. Basically there is less honesty in the answers because those answers are too polished, or for lack of a better word too inoffensive. In the heat of the moment when put on the spot there is higher likelihood of a candidate revealing his/her biases. This bias may reveal contradictions between stated ideas during the debate and the personal characteristics and beliefs of the candidate. Fortunately the timing format limits the efficacy of such a strategy because to talk in such board terms will not impress viewers, especially if other candidates demand and demonstrate greater details in their answers.

A secondary more minor problem is that while stated above that most problems are long-term, there are some instances where quick decision-making is required and it is important for voters to see how candidates go through a thought process to solve new and immediate problems. Therefore, it seems appropriate that the moderator should reveal three of the four questions to the candidates at least one week prior to the debate and the fourth question should be concealed until it is asked during the debate.

One of the critical elements of a debate is candidate interaction. Debates in which candidates are not allowed to pose questions to other candidates do not accomplish the intended purpose of a debate because idea exchange and challenged validity are limited. Candidates should be able to 'poke' holes in the answer of another candidate to test the validity and effectiveness of a given idea or solution. Based on the time restrictions placing a cap on the number of questions a candidate can ask seems appropriate. Initially allowing six total questions over the entire debate with no more than two per question is a good place to start. While it may be difficult to impose a limit on question asking, both time limits and the need to reduce the probability that one candidate obfuscates flaws in his/her answer(s) by reducing talk time through forcing the opponent(s) to answer numerous questions supercede any restriction concerns.

Candidates would be allowed the create written documents prior to the debate (notes) to use in the debate, but all electronic devices would be disallowed for concern about unethical behavior such as communicating with another party or performing research while other candidates are speaking. Candidate order would be determined by a coin flip after the moderator determines the order of the questions with the winner either selecting to answer questions 1 and 3 first or questions 2 and 4 first.

Finally another element of this debate format could include the moderator at the conclusion of the fourth question fact checking a single statement made by each candidate and asking candidates to clarify their statements within three minutes using the accurate information. Reasonably there should be little reason to reject such an option, but there may be concern that numerous media outlets may detract from the overall debate by focusing on moderator bias instead. However, despite this minor concern moderator fact checking at the conclusion of the debate with rebuttal opportunity is appropriate.

The way debates are currently conducted in modern society, evading legitimate discovery of meaningful solutions for so many existing and new problems in the global environment, is shameful and should not be tolerated. The above debate design is one way to ensuring that voters better understand how candidates would manage a large number of problems in numerous different fields. Clarification of these ideas is important for determining viable solutions as well as creating a more defined character regarding what the United States wants to be as a country instead of this uncertain ‘all political parties are the same, everyone is equal unless they aren’t, melting pot, but not really, government out of my life unless I need its help’ type of contradictory mantra that a large number of voters seem to possess. Overall the public needs to demonstrate that they realize debates are not pageants where the winners are those who are more confident, good-looking and empathetic, but intellectual competitions where the winners are those who present the best ideas for solving a given problem in the context of reality. If that is not the case then why continue to waste time with a debate at all and simply give each candidate 20-30 minutes of national television time to stump.

Addressing Debate in Society

One repeating issue in our society is the question of how to address an incorrect, yet stubborn mindset. This issue has once again become relevant with the radicalization (based on recent past attitudes) of the Republican political party in the United States. Basically how should society address groups that continue to advance a viewpoint on a given situation that is not supported by logic or empirical evidence?

In the past when control of information was more manageable news organizations, both in print and broadcast form, would do a reasonable job at presenting truthful information. Of course there were certain less scrupulous organizations, which attempted to bolster their own viewpoint for their own ends regardless of truthfulness. Fortunately there were enough ‘neutral’ organizations with strong anchors that wanted to present the truth to neutralize most of the presented misinformation. Unfortunately that was then and this is now; the nature of news has changed from presenting the truth to presenting what the public is willing to watch in effort to acquire the most advertising dollars to make the most money.

This change in mindset has resulted in news organizations fracturing their information presentation. Instead of focusing on reporting the unbiased truth with a utilitarian slant, which is thought to be best for society as a whole, these organizations have elected to take a viewpoint that plays towards a certain demographic; thus artificially supporting their viewpoints while diminishing contradicting viewpoints regardless of which viewpoint is actually better supported by logic and empirical evidence. In this environment competition has become more prevalent because of the ‘us versus them’ mentality that is catalyzed by supporting a particular viewpoint.

The competition element spills over into what can be viewed in some context as attacks against the other ‘sides’. Some have argued that this mindset spurs more radicalized viewpoints. These viewpoints then demand reaction, which further facilitates a vicious cycle where accuracy and correct solutions to problems disappear in a sea of reaction-reaction conversation. This mindset is largely the domain of progressive thinkers in that they believe other progressives in the media are focusing too much on the personalities that are broadcasting radical options instead of focusing on the statements themselves.

There is also concern that progressives in the media are giving legitimacy to these radical individuals by including their foolish irrational ideas in the discussion and simply provoking them to make more. It is similar to taking someone who states that 2 + 2 = 9 seriously and actually entertaining that statement as a valid opinion. Instead if someone gives an opinion that is similarly foolish and illogical that person should just be ignored. By ignoring these individuals these foolish opinions remain only in an echo chamber of similar believers, which destroys the influence of these opinions. This mindset stems from the belief of ‘any publicity is good publicity’.

While a strategy involving ignoring foolish opinions makes theoretical sense, the problem in reality is that a number of individuals already share these beliefs and will drive the publicity of those opinions themselves. Also this strategy fails because those who give life to these opinions already have a publicity outlet for them (most often Fox News in the United States or its international equivalences), thus not engaging those opinions is not a significant detriment to limiting the publicity of those opinions. Finally due to the corruption of the previously legitimate news media it is thought that attracting controversy will help spur the publicity of these opinions in a pseudo debate in order to increase ratings. Basically where Edward R. Murrow would have said, “A fringe group of fools have started preaching that 2 + 2 = 9, but that belief has long been proven false and those who have it should be ignored.”, Don Lemon now says, “There is a growing sentiment that 2 + 2 may not actually be 4, but 9 join us on CNN later tonight for the controversy.”

Another problem with ignoring certain opinions is the issue of the unopposed certainty. For the myriad of problems in the world there are multiple ideas that people believe could be a valid solution; however, if a ‘solution’ is proposed and no one argues against it, numerous individuals would naturally come to believe that the proposed ‘solution’ is legitimate and appropriate, thus radical ideas must be challenged at some level to neutralize this aspect of human psychology. Overall based on the issues of unopposed certainty and lack of publicity denying influence, ignoring the radical and irrational opinions in the media marketplace is not an appropriate strategy.

So if ignoring and trying to isolate radical ideas is not a consistently viable strategy how does one address radical ideas? Addressing the issue is tricky because research has demonstrated that a simple denial has little effect on destroying the illusionary validity that supporters give to a radical illogical idea. Part of the reason why the simple explanation does not work is the issue of first impressions. Unfortunately human beings place too much focus on first impressions in both people and ideas. If a person agrees with an idea it is difficult to later convince that person that the idea is invalid. This mindset can be split into two parts: first, general laziness in that once people make up their minds they rarely feel the need to revisit those thoughts to see if the information is still valid. Second, most people are simply terrified to be wrong. Unfortunately a long evidence riddled debunking also has its problems largely in maintaining both the attention of the target audience and cohesion of thought.

With these concerns a direct attack against the idea and the individual(s) proposing the idea may not be the best strategy. Instead a better attack strategy would be to drive a natural expansion of the idea beyond a single cause and effect statement. Almost all radical ideas are similar to a house of cards: they are simple, only have depth when viewed from a specific angle and are only stable under ideal conditions. Force radical ideas to expand in their application and they either collapse under their own illogical nature or people realize how inapplicable they are in society.

For example one ‘popular’ radical idea is the libertarian notion of eliminating income taxes. On its face a number of people sympathize with such an idea because of belief in government waste and simple greed disguised as ‘fairness’; however, when expanding the application of the idea to demonstrate all of the services government provides and how those services from infrastructure maintenance to education to law and order will erode without taxes the idea of eliminating taxes falls apart. Basically advancing the idea from theory to practice and addressing the outcomes on individuals and society sheds appropriate light on the idea’s efficacy.

Another issue that should be avoided is focusing on the messenger regardless of how ‘crazy’ one can characterize the messenger. Attacking the messenger will typically lead to backlash and lack of focus. The way to isolate the messenger is to defeat the message, thus denying him/her the ability to propagate a valid message into society. Unfortunately defeating the message is more difficult than simply citing a couple pieces of evidence, which contradicts with certain elements of the message. In addition to the concerns above, human psychology is another troublemaker in this issue because of the backfire effect.

The backfire effect was coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler and describes the psychological reaction by individuals to actually strengthen their belief in a particular idea when confronted with valid contradictory evidence. One explanation of the backfire effect is that an individual first develops a belief without the contradictory evidence and when exposed to it rationalizes that because that evidence was previously unknown there must also be unknown evidence that further supports the original belief invalidating the contradictory evidence. This erroneous and laughable reasoning is similar to that perpetrated by supporters of the Iraq War relative to the lack of discovered ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in Iraq, a refrain of ‘just because we didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction doesn’t mean they weren’t there.’ Basically backfire activators are saying, ‘just because this evidence destroys the validity of my opinion on this issue doesn’t mean there isn’t some mysterious unknown evidence that destroys that evidence reaffirming my opinion.’

One strategy to avoid trigger the backfire effect is to attack the radical messages indirectly. Instead of referencing the message directly, attack it indirectly by introducing another contradicting idea with the backing of empirical evidence and logic. Details of the rational and effective idea can be expanded so they are in direct contrast with the radical idea, but do not directly compare the two. This methodology should convince individuals of the superiority of the new idea independently from interaction with the incorrect radical idea, thus when the comparison eventually comes the individual should be more willing to abandon the original erroneous belief.

Of course neither of the above two strategies are guaranteed to work, but they are superior to most of the discourse that occurs in our society with regards to debate and idea exchange. Attacking messengers who express radical expressed opinions rarely works to advance the conversation because rational people, ignorant or not, care about the message, not the messenger and supporters of either side of the argument will typically support that argument in the face of attack regardless of whether or not it is actually accurate. Overall the means to ‘disarm’ radical opinions is optimized through expansion of that idea from a simple talking point to theoretical application in society and how it fails when actually applied or indirect correction.

Paying College Athletes

Periodically the question of whether or not college athletes should be paid a stipend or salary flares up in society. With the recent airing of the ‘The Fab Five’ documentary by EPSN this issue has once again arisen with questions that while outside marketing individuals and the university was making millions off of the Michigan Basketball program the players were unable to benefit in the same way. Rather than develop the standard pro/con list, this post will function more as a trial where the burden of proof is on the pay proponents to demonstrate why the NCAA should change its existing policy to allow college athletes to be receive a stipend or salary.

The principle opening statement for those that support athlete pay would highlight the sheer amount of money that college athletic conferences make from football and men’s basketball and how that money is then divided among the member schools. Unfortunately those players who are providing the product, which is imperative to accumulating these revenues, are not entitled to any significant piece of the pie. Some would go so far to claim that such unfair treatment is un-American. In addition to the general ‘unfairness’ of the system as it stands proponents would argue that paying players would also reduce the probability of talent drain by giving players another incentive to not leave early for the professional levels. Finally paying athletes should reduce the incentive for players to violate NCAA eligibility rules because losing eligibility would involve not just the loss of playing time, but also tangible money they are now receiving for playing. Note that for sake of brevity the argument that players should be paid because of the significant revenues that accompany their sport will be referenced as the ‘excess revenue’ argument.

Before beginning it must be acknowledged that the ‘excess revenue’ argument inherently only encompasses football players and male basketball players not other collegiate athletes because their sports do not generate anything close to the revenues football and male basketball generate if they generate positive profit revenues at all (which most do not due to a lack of popularity). The first argument against the ‘excess revenue’ argument is that it is incorrect to argue that collegiate athletes do not receive appropriate compensation. A large percentage of these athletes receive full college scholarships as compensation for their services, which depending on the residency status of the individual typically ranges in value from 5,000 to 35,000 dollars per year. For a vast majority of athletes the purpose of going to college is to develop the skills and knowledge that will be needed for their non-athletic professional careers, thus the scholarship they receive is viewed as adequate ‘payment’ for their athletic performance.

However, because the issue of ‘excess revenue’ is commonly brought up by sports reporters their inherent bias on the issue means that focusing on non-elite athletes may miss the real motivation behind this issue. For example no one addresses the issue of ‘excess revenue’ through lamentation that the 9th man on the Washington State Cougars basketball team drives around in a broken-down 11-year old car. Instead the common lament is that fate has befallen superstar 1st team All-American John Doe from Kentucky. Furthermore this mindset drives some sports reporters to excuse John Doe’s behavior when he takes money from a booster using the reasoning that he took the money solely to fix his car, i.e. he needed it to survive. Therefore, truly debating this issue may need to focus on those that are elite athletes who have a reasonable probability of becoming professionals and thus do not effectively use the academic advantages provided by the scholarship in order to find a resolution.

The problem with focusing on the ‘superstar’ argument is that there are pitfalls which derail any legitimate claim for a salary. First, addressing the fairness argument, sports reporters do not seem to grasp the fact that college sports for these ‘superstar’ players is akin to an internship for a business professional. In an internship the intern is expected to carryout tasks similar to those carried out by those that are officially employed in a full-time job at company x despite being paid an amount disproportional to what they are helping the company earn. If the intern performs well then he/she receives a formal job offer at the company and then makes a salary more ‘deserving’ of the role in the company. This evolution is similar to the college player proving at the college level that he has high potential to be valued asset to a professional team and the high salary reward that potential commands. This being the case why are sports reporters not raising public concern with the unfair treatment of Johnny the Intern at the Fortune 500 company?

Suppose proponents of ‘excess revenue’ argue that perspective in that regard is not their purview, addressing issues outside of sports, but if asked they would disagree with the internship structure used in professional industry similar to how they disagree with the lack of payment for college players. If true, a lingering question for proponents would involve the distribution of these funds. As suggested above, most sports reporters focus entirely on the superstar players with regards to the additional pay; this leads to the natural question: should players receive additional payment based on skill level/performance?

There are two main arguments one could make in favor of the above position. The first argument is that superstars are the principle driver for high-quality teams. Teams that do not have at least one superstar caliber player will more than likely not have a large amount of success and it is success that drives the high revenues that conferences and schools receive from the football and basketball programs. While it is reasonable to suggest that teams have a higher probability to perform better as a whole with a superstar player, the argument that present success drives the high revenue stream potential for a given school is less valid.

The simple fact is that most schools have established a particular reputation based on tradition and their fan bases root for the jersey more than the players wearing the jersey. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that superstar players, who would view collegiate sports as an internship, significantly influence the total revenue potential of their particular sport at a given university over the course of their playing career. Interestingly enough it can be argued that because of the tradition structure certain superstars can establish ‘winning’ traditions for universities that previously did not have such notoriety, but by the time such a turning point can be officially linked to those particular superstars they will have already left the university rendering any payment moot.

The second argument is the old question of offering incentives to influence positive behaviors. It has been established above and through simple logic that a team who exerts more effort and plays at a higher level will have more success and more successful teams will, in very basic terms, have a higher potential of creating larger revenue streams. Therefore, if paying players induces them to perform better, it is a win-win situation for both sides as long as a proper balance can be found for the amount paid. With respects to superstar players there should be a higher payment ceiling because of the inherent higher talent ceiling.

Unfortunately under closer examination the logic of that argument falls apart. There are two different psychological categories for the college player, those that are going to move on to the professional level or think they have an opportunity and those that participate for either the scholarship/free education or simply for enjoyment of the game. Offering more financial incentive should not induce higher quality play from those in the first category because they are motivated to acquire the highest draft spot as possible both for money and prestige, elements that would dwarf what the university could offer as a motivator. Offering more financial incentive for the second group should not increase their quality of play because these individuals should already be playing as hard as they can simply to keep their scholarship or for the love of the game.

The above analysis makes it difficult to support the position that superstars should be paid more money than other individuals on the team. Therefore, if payment were provided it stands to reason that each individual on the team should receive payment. However, how much should each player receive? The two thought processes for the payment value stem from the needs argument vs. the production argument.

The needs argument is developed largely through the number of sports reporters who comment that poor superstar John Doe cannot pay routine bills even though many others make money off of his work and/or name. Under this mindset the issue is necessity over ‘fairness’ due to the time requirement of the sport the individual is unable to take a job to cover these daily/weekly costs. Using this reasoning each player should receive a smaller amount of compensation, like 500 to 1,000 dollars a month. In the production argument the issue is not about any daily/weekly costs, but instead fairness. The players should receive some percentage of the money their work product creates for the university and the athletic conference. Using this reasoning each player receives an amount dictated largely by the amount that can be confirmed as ‘earned’ by the particular sport.

Unfortunately for ‘excess revenue’ proponents both pay styles have problems. The need argument runs into the problem of equality. The time devoted to playing the sport, which under other circumstances could be used for a job to acquire money for routine bills, is not volunteered. That time and performance on the court is exchanged for scholarship money. Non-scholarship students may have time available to take a job to help pay these routine bills, but more often than not that money will be devoted towards paying college tuition, a concern scholarship athletes do not have. It is illogical and unfair to suggest that one group of individuals should receive compensation for certain financial responsibilities when another group does not. Interestingly enough the blind bias of ‘excess revenue’ proponents to this inequality is rather sad in the lament that sport A takes up too much time disallowing the player from taking a job to pay for routine costs, but the non-athlete is able to do so. The challenge to the proponents, identify a job available to a college student that pays 5,000 – 35,000 dollars a semester which requires as much or less opportunity cost and applied work as a college sport.

The production argument runs into the problem of determination. While there are occupations that pay based on performance relative to revenue generated (commission), in these occupations the mechanism for determining how performance directly influences total revenue generated is very simple and has few ‘moving parts’. However, that is not the case in college sports. There are a wide range of factors that go into determining the total size of the revenue stream. Further complicating the issue of determination is the aforementioned ‘jersey’ issue where most fans and media contracts stem from the school reputation itself not from the specific players that are competing at the time. Therefore, it would be very difficult to rationally assign an appropriate percentage from the total revenue to pay players.

Regarding the supposed side benefits to paying players to argue that players should be paid because it would dissuade them from violating NCAA rules is a foolish argument. The core of the argument amounts to – in effort to stem student-athletes from violating NCAA rules through the acquisition of improper financial benefits these individuals should receive payment. Such a position is similar to saying ‘gee there seems to be a lot of embezzlement at our company… I know let’s give everyone raises to hopefully reduce the amount of embezzlement.’ The NCAA is under no obligation to provide additional positive incentive to ensure compliance with its rules and nor should anyone expect such incentive.

The argument that a salary at the college level will have any effect on whether or not an individual enters a professional draft for his perspective sport is rather foolish as well. Suppose the NCAA mandates a 10,000 dollar per year stipend, that 10,000 dollars is suppose to reduce the probability of an individual that has the skills to receive millions of dollars as a professional from leaving college and becoming a professional as early as is allowed? One aspect that may work in favor of the ‘less talent drain’ argument is that high school age players would not seek out income opportunities from foreign basketball clubs instead of going to college. However, since the number of individuals of notoriety that have gone overseas to play basketball in lieu of college can be counted on a single hand and football does not have a similar outlet, this aspect is rather meaningless as an advantage.

Overall the situation regarding payment of players can be summarized as followed: players are clearly made aware of the arrangement between the university and themselves with regard to received compensation. Thus, those who elect to participate in collegiate sports fall into one of two categories, those that view college sports as a mere internship/stepping stone to the professional level and those that view college sports as a means to provide financial sustenance to further their educational goals while focusing on the enjoyment of the sport. The millions of dollars that athletic conferences and universities receive from media deals and merchandizing are frequently funneled back into the university to pay for sports and event activities that do not produce a profit; therefore, these millions are gross revenue not net revenue (profit) and thus are not freely available for distribution as a form of tangible player salary.

The needs argument is the most popular sub-rationalization for payment, beyond ‘excessive revenue’, but the provided scholarship routinely exceeds, by large margin, anything that a player could earn on his own working an independent job. If the player is not interested in using the scholarship for its intended purpose then that is the player’s decision, alternative measures of redress should not be expected or required. Assigning an alternative means of redress would be irrational anyways because the scholarship itself is not part of the revenue stream, but an exchanged cost. The university does not have the resources to provide cash equivalency to the player in exchange for foregoing the scholarship.

The jersey argument eliminates ‘uniqueness in importance’ as a means of justification for player payment as there are a small number of high-quality intramural teams that could draw large audiences if wearing official school colors in lieu of highly recruited athletes. In the end the only argument that proponents have is the fairness argument, which is no argument at all without a moral or logic backing which have been eliminated by the above analysis.

Even if proponents are not willing to accept the above arguments the one immutable obstacle restricting paying players is Title IX. The equality requirements of Title IX, which are tied to public school funding, make any additional payment towards athletes highly improbable in any public institution for any significant amount. With regards to private institutions they have clearly demonstrated that they are not willing to ‘rock’ the proverbial boat and provide additional payment to their players in lieu of public institutions not having the ability to do so. Overall the simple fact is that at this time it seems impractical for proponents to push for a system that provides athletes with additional money beyond scholarships for their athletic performance because beyond a seemingly hollow belief of ‘they deserve it’ there is no reason to support such a system.

The Case for Banning Automatic Weapons

Oddly enough despite human intelligence and reason, society continuously comes to decisions that do not produce any genuine advantage yet perpetuate detrimental effects. The continued legalization of semi-automatic and automatic weapons in the United States is one of the most prominent examples of this perplexity. After a thorough analysis there is no rational reason to suggest that the legalization of automatic weapons is in any way beneficial for society. Note that for the remainder of this post the term ‘automatic’ with regards to weapons will stand for semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

There are three general points of argument made by gun proponents, like the National Rifle Association, which can be viewed in any light as rational regarding the overall legalization of firearms. First, citizens should be allowed to purchase firearms for recreational and non-recreational hunting. Second, citizens should be allowed to purchase firearms as a method of self or familial protection from individuals that would seek to do harm or invade the home with malice intent. Third, regardless of motive or rational, citizens should be allowed to purchase firearms because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows for it.

Arguing for the use of automatic weapons for the purpose of hunting is irrational. For recreational hunting the use of an automatic weapon is grossly inefficient and a waste of money. The capacity to fire 10-20 bullets in an extraordinary short timeframe into a deer, quail or other game fowl is unnecessary and is detrimental to the activity itself. The detriment comes from both the cheapening of the activity through the elimination of the challenge and increasing the probability of damaging the quantity and quality of meat that can be collected from the animal. For non-recreational hunting, such as killing wild hogs and boars that are invading agriculture and livestock lands, double-barreled shotguns are more effective at killing those types of animals. Therefore, from a rational perspective the argument that automatic weapons should remain legal for the sake of hunting is not valid.

The most popular argument in favor of lax gun control regulation is the notion of self-protection. The predominant component of the self-protection argument is that law-abiding citizens should have the ability to own a firearm in order to protect their home, self and family members from intruders. It must be pointed out that owning a home firearm is much more likely to result in the death of a family member over that of an intruder both statistically and on a simple frequency argument; however, despite that issue the rationality behind allowing for the ownership of an automatic weapon over a non-automatic weapon is non-existent.

The reason behind the reality that ‘protection’ firearms are more likely to kill a family member over an intruder is almost self-explanatory because most commonly a home is burglarized in one of two ways. First, the burglar is only concerned about getting a quick buck. Burglars either case their target because they want to spend as little time as possible in the house when acquiring their ill-gotten gains or the burglary is an spur-of-the-moment smash and grab. Either way the owner being home at the time of burglary only complicates things, so rarely will a burglar strike when an owner is home thus eliminating the protective factor of the gun for this type of situation.

The second type of home burglary is the more rare, but more violent home invasion. Thinking a gun is going to offer any real form of protection during a home invasion is wish-thinking as the individuals that participate in home invasions are frequently more heavily armed, better trained in the use of firearms and more willing and at ease with killing than the owner of the home. Brandishing a gun in this situation will more likely result in the owner getting killed than successfully warding off the invasion. Therefore, unless an individual is being robbed by 11-15 unarmed individuals at the same time, the laws of probability frown on such an occurrence, it stands to reason that owning an automatic firearm over a non-automatic firearm will simply increase the probability of a loved one’s death because of their greater killing potential.

A recent secondary element to the protection argument has emerged: having the ability to utilize a concealed firearm in a public place to prevent or cease the unlawful use of a firearm by another individual. Basically a bystander should be afforded the ability to carry their own firearm in order to have it available to shoot another individual that is ‘shooting’ up a public place in an attempt to kill a large number of people. While mass shootings, which seem to occur with disgusting more regularity in society, have increased the popularity of this reasoning too often have these gun-wielding bystanders been absent. Arguing the theoretical potential of an issue is meaningless if it is not put into practice on a consistent basis. Even then, it should give someone immediate pause to recommend or even envision an environment where public safety is dependent on unofficially trained or untrained bystanders having to draw firearms.

Some argue that motivation or even utility is unnecessary for the legality of firearms due to the Second Amendment. First, the contention that any citizen has the right to legally own a firearm based on the protections offered by the Second Amendment is incorrect. The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Proponents of universal protection under the Second Amendment tend to forget that this amendment was drafted in 1787 and that the word ‘Militia’ is extremely important for that time period. Nowhere in that proclamation can it be reasonably inferred that the Second Amendment gives an individual the right to own a firearm without association with a Militia (note the capital M) sanctioned by the government and possessing the authority to protect the state. Now in modern times due to the existence of a standing national army, something that the framers thought would never be developed because of state autonomy concerns in relation to Federal government power; there is no existing situation in which that condition of Militia association can be met, thus by default no private citizen has the right to own a firearm based on the Second Amendment.

It can be argued that despite the accuracy of this interpretation of the Second Amendment the Supreme Court has concluded, it would seem inaccurately, that the Second Amendment does offer legal protection for gun ownership. However, the Supreme Court also did not eliminate the ability of the Federal Government to place restrictions on the type of arms ownership. For example no private citizen is allowed to legally own a nuclear weapon or large caliber machine guns, thus the Second Amendment protection is not absolute. With the conclusion that Second Amendment protection is not absolute a meaningful utility is required to own an automatic weapon. Yet as demonstrated above that meaningful utility does not exist. In fact the only reason one would even purchase an automatic weapon is that individual is interested in killing as many animals or people as possible in a given time period. Clearly such a rational is not a beneficial, just or meaningful utility.

Now one could make the argument that banning automatic firearms, even though a number of units were banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which sun-downed in 2004, is that it would create some form of ‘slippery slope’ when it came to gun ownership rights. The slippery slope argument is common in philosophical discussions when addressing a controversial strategy and its execution. Despite its notoriety and popularity slippery slope arguments are solely based on fear and there is little reason to take them seriously.

The failure occurs in the assumption of an applied domino effect in that once one decision is made an associated decision will automatically occur at some time in the future. Such a belief is irrational. The true design of a slippery slope argument was to suggest that once a controversial rationalization is made in a given situation, it would become easier to make more radical controversial rationalizations in future situations. However, such arguments can be neutralized by establishing a rational and thorough review system that demands a certain ‘line in the sand’ mentality in the decision-making process. In addition there is nothing controversial about banning automatic weapons because of the aforementioned lack of beneficial utility in their use, thus no ‘slippery slope’ even if the concept were valid.

The final argument that might be used against a permanent automatic weapon ban is the concern that if automatic weapons were banned only criminals would have access to them. This argument has been a mainstay in the pro-gun lobby for firearms in general, but is irrelevant in this instance once again due to the lack of beneficial utility element for automatic weapons. As for the concern with the criminal element, almost all active automatic weapon utilization occurs within some form of criminal enterprise, thus making automatic weapons illegal will reduce the efficiency of operations for these criminals while applying very little inconvenience for the general public. Under the suggested policy private citizens would still have legal access to non-automatic firearms to address any self-protection issues. Realistically the suggest policy should facilitate an environment where the only individuals that are legally allowed to own automatic weapons would be active members of the military and members of a SWAT team.

Overall well meaning people can argue about the extent of gun control applied to non-automatic weapons, but there exists no reasonable or rational argument for the continued legalization of semi-automatic or automatic weapons.