Jeremy Rifkin: Are Animals Similar To Us?

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (1 September 2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how “... researchers are finding [is] that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we imagined.” (Rifkin 61). Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as “They [animals] feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, affection, excitement, and even love -- and these findings are changing how we view animals. ”(Rifkin 61). This suggests a pathos and logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s understanding and knowledge in changing our perspective of the inhumane and inequality treatment that non domestic animals receive. Rifkin’s use of pathos and logos appeals is to

I honestly think that Jeremy Rifkin had some very significant findings when he published “A Change of Heart about Animals”. If it wasn't for Rifkin many people like myself would have not known that animals share some of the same traits as humans like grief, self awareness, and the need for affection. Everyone needs to know that animals aren't some type of toy but rather a living creature with feelings. Rifkin wants his readers to believe that humans and animals are much alike and want some of the same rights for them but is that a good idea…

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals”, Rifkin asserts that humans are treating animals in the most atrocious way, and he claims that in order for their lives to improve, we need to definitely adjust ours. He uses great amount of logos, and several experiments done with different animals and tries his best to closely relate animals to us, humans. Rifkin although, never inserts a call for action to this problem throughout his article. Instead, he puts the emphasis on the pathos of the argument. In the world we are living in today, there is about 8.7 million different living species. Whether they are land or marine animals, they do play a big role in our community such as being apart of the food pyramid, assisting handicapped people wherever they go, or being a transportation for people living on farms and fields. With this being said, the ranking of animals in our community has brought up a heated argument in connection to their rights and welfare. Eight legged, four legged, or two legged land or sea animals do not comprehend the concept of rights. If we, humans, give animals “rights”, we are basically inferring the fact that we are like animals, and they have the entitlement to share our rights. Although they don’t understand rights, the fact that many of these animals are being treated inhumanely is wrong and animal welfare should be ingrained into this community rather than the massive inhumane treatment.

Jeremy Rifkin in the article " A Change of Heart about Animals" argues on the fact that as incredible as it sounds, many of our fellow creatures as like us in so many ways. For example, in a movie named Paulie a young girl that suffers autism gets attached to a parrot. The girl struggles to talk but she just can't. Time passes by and then the girl starts talking because the parrot helped her. An incident happened so the little girl's parents decide to let the parrot go. The parrot ends up in an animal testing lab but somehow he managed to escape. The parrot begins to miss his owner because he formed a bond with a human being. Obviously, this proves Rifkin is right when he states that animals experience feelings like human beings.

Contrary to what we might think, animals share similar characteristics with us in terms of their physical and psychological states. Jeremy Rifkin, author of twenty books on the impact of scientific and technological changes on the society and the environment, writes in his op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals,” research which supports animals have behavioral, mental, and emotional states. Koko, a gorilla, was taught how to use sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and can understand several thousand English words. To express their sense of individuality, orangutans use mirrors to explore parts of their bodies they can 't otherwise see. A common misconception is animals can 't feel anything, meaning they don’t understand suffering. However, elephants appear to experience grief by mourning for the dead and standing next to their dead kin for days (Rifkin). Also according to Victoria Braithwaite, a Professor of Fisheries and Biology interested in animal cognition, studies in her article "Hooked on a Myth" suggests nociceptors, specialized nerve endings that alert creatures to feel pain, are found in the mouths of fish. This study proves animals have the ability to experience pain. Rifkin’s

Imagine you are having dinner with your family, at your favorite restaurant. You exchange stories about your day along with smiles and laughter. Now imagine suddenly being knocked out, and the next thing you know, you are taken away from your family, confined in a cage in captivity. You notice instruments near you and realize it's for experimentation. You cry out in protest, but they continue anyway. This is the life of many animals who are vulnerable and can’t defend themselves against neglect and abuse. Therefore it is our moral responsibility to protect animals. Animals should have certain rights to protect them from being treated inhumanely. Animals are similar to humans and shouldn’t be experimented on, held in captivity or have their natural habitats destroyed.

Furthermore, Rifkin discusses the cognitive abilities of animals, by informing us that learning is passed on from parent to offspring. Rifkin says that most animals engaged all kind of learning, Rifkin in paragraph 15 wants to make us get in our emotions and he says, “So what does all of this portend for the way we treat our fellow creatures?” Rifkin believes that a lot of animals are in the most inhumane

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

After reading Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, I discovered more about animals than I had ever known before. As a former pet owner I know how much owners care for their pets and consider them to be a part of the family, almost like a child to them, so they are treated with kindness and are loved to the fullest. What I did not know was how intelligent animals actually are. Rifkin does a great job at expressing this by demonstrating to the audience facts that they had possibly not known or heard of before. For example, he describes how crows can make tools out of a wire, gorillas can learn sign language and have an average score on an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test, and how pigs can often feel lonely and go into depression.

Jeremy Rifkin I strongly agree with your thesis. I believe animals should not be mistreated and viewed as nothing more than unintelligent animals. When you said that animals our fellow creatures are like us because they feel pain, suffer, and experience stress; that had me thinking. Animals are capable of thinking for themselves if they also feel pain, suffer, and experience stress, like you said. I like how you used evidence to support your claim. In the article you stated," In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact". I agree with the case you make about animals being alike to humans and should not be looked as ignorant things. The facts and evidence you gave from real scientists on

Peter Singer’s argument in “All Animals are Equal” dictates that the principle of equality should be extended to all animals. He defines that equality must mean “equality of consideration: equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and rights” (Singer 18). This very definition clearly articulates that not every animal will be treated equally, but will be treated with equal worth. Singer claims that “no matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering... of any other being” (Singer 20). His principle of equality extends a very humanitarian idea; an idea that treats every species with the respect that it deserves.

The human/animal dichotomy is at the core of this debate. Humans have so separated themselves from all other creatures in this world. According to the 2011 US Census, there were 13.7 million hunters in the United States of America at that time. That means over 10 million people actually went and took another creature’s life. Shouldn’t John Locke’s inalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” apply to all creatures? Each of us had no choice as to which form we were born in; we might have just as easily been born a deer. In order to properly use a utilitarian lens, we must agree that the best action maximizes the benefit of sentient creatures. Humans are not the only sentient creatures on this planet and we should not

In the last section our class we have discussed the question of what has value. We read many articles written from various points of view on what has value and moral rights and why they have value. This tension between what has rights and what does not is often played out between humans and non-human organisms. Many philosophers and people, including myself, believe that animals have value and moral rights. Yet, there are still many who believe it is silly to think that animals have rights like humans do. Philosopher Peter Singer, author of the article “All Animals Are Equal” describes this conflict of views as an opportunity for people to expand their moral horizons. He notes in his paper how the civil rights movement is somewhat

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to

For as long as I can remember, I’ve always had an incredible love for animals and been extremely compassionate towards them. It didn’t matter if it was a cat or a mouse, I always had the urge to pet and hug them. What I never thought about was the relationship between the food I was eating and animals. Growing up in a Mexican household, food was always very important, but mostly all of the popular dishes that I grew up eating contained animal products. Something that I would later come to realize is that I was actually consuming animals, and that did not sit right with me, so I had to make the conscious decision and put an end to it.