Jeremy Rifkin's A Change Of Heart About Animals

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

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

That seems to be a tad bit hypocritical. All the animals he talks about have had some type of experiments on them like the crows and the orangoutang who was taught sign. His article was very informative but it wasn't credible if he decided to contradict himself with his evidence.

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.

Throughout the course of history, many people have used the power of language to manipulate audiences to gather support for their personal agenda or gain. Donald Trump speech is an example of using the power of language to manipulate people. President Donald Trump told about two dozen chief executives of major U.S. companies that he plans to bring many millions of jobs back to the United States. When it comes to the topics of bringing jobs back people will readily agree. In the article “A Change Of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin, author and president of the foundation of economic trends in Washington D.C, suggests in a seemingly, unbiased fashion, that animals “are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rifkin). With the support

Animals can feel pain just as humans do. When scientist talk about the similarities between humans and animals they do not consider the similarity of the pain. Believe it or not animals

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin uses scientific evidence to reason with us that “many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined”. Rifkin suggests that animals should be treated better and be provided with better living conditions. He uses Betty and Koko as examples that animals have higher intellectual abilities and emotions than we thought. Many scientists also argued that animals do not have an understanding of death or capable of grief, but Rifkin counteracts that argument by using elephants as evidence to show that they are capable of grief.

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.

In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” (2003), published by Los Angeles Times, author Jeremy Rifkin discusses how our fellow creatures are more like humans than we had ever imagined. Using academic diction, Rifkin develops his main idea with evidence such as Caledonian crows being able to make tools to complete a task. These birds were given the task of grabbing meat out of a tube with a choice of two tools, a hooked wire and a straight wire. Both of the birds were able to complete the task, however, one bird showed exceptional cognitive abilities when she bent a straight wire into a hook to grab the meat. This suggests a logos persuasive appeal that broadens the reader’s awareness of the conceptual abilities of crows. Rifkin’s use

In the article titled “A Change of Heart about Animals”, by Jeremy Rifkin, it talks about how us humans need to have a different perspective on how animals are treated and have more empathy for them. I however, disagree with Rifkin. It is essential to recognize that in nature, animals kill each other for food and have no sympathy for whatever it is that they are eating.With this said, why should killing,eating,and animal experimentation be any different or inhumane?

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

Animal testing has become a controversial issue among many people in the world today. Some of these people involved in this controversial debate believe that animal testing is unethical and should be replaced by other methods. The other group of people in this debate believe that animal testing is necessary in order to research new products that cannot be tested on humans. Traditional animal testing forces animals to undergo numerous experiments for different forms of research. Medical, cosmetic, and many other types of research experiments use animals to provide the results on how the new product may affect humans. There are many people that support the use of alternative methods to animal research and then

Woods discusses the pro and con issue of animal experimentation as it relates to both animal advocates and the supporters of animal based research. She points out the use of animals in research and the procedures like LD50 test and different practice for researchers. This book also proposes testing without animals as discussed to be Vitro, human cells, artificial ski, and cell structures. The implementation and principle of 3Rs of Alternatives are also discussed in this book.

Experiments on dogs led to the diabetes- fighting drug insulin, test on monkeys helped develop the polio vaccine, pig advance skin grafts for burn victims, and rats and mice been helpful to fight against cancer. Many researcher argue that testing on living organisms is necessary because they believe there are no laboratory alternatives that can replicate the human body. However, opponents argue that animal experimentation is cruel and inhumane, and that is unnecessary. Opponents also question the results that come from animal experimentation. They believe that animals are not reliable subjects because their bodies are not the same as humans bodies. The organs, nervous systems, and cellular makeup of animals are really different that experimentation would give inaccurate information. Animals testing is unnecessary because technology is so advanced now that a computer can help advance medical research and help cure diseases.