(Intro) In his article “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals are primarily used for the benefit of humans and advocates for animals to be treated with more respect. However, some individuals believe that completely eliminating the use of animals would create additional complexities in our already intricate world.
I partially agree with Rifkin, but strongly disagree with his perspective on animals existing solely for human benefit (Paragraph 5). Nevertheless, I do concur with Rifkin’s belief that animals should be treated with more respect. Surprisingly, animals share more similarities with humans than we realize. Rifkin emphasizes this point by highlighting Koko, a 300-pound gorilla, who has acquired sign language skills and comprehends thousands of English words. In fact, Koko’s performance on human IQ tests falls within the range of 70 to 95, nearing the average human score of 100 according to http//.
Rifkin employs a narrative involving an elephant that remains near its deceased family member for several days, occasionally using its trunk to touch the body. This anecdote serves as evidence of animals’ capacity to experience emotions and display intelligence akin to that of humans. Consequently, Rifkin argues that the treatment of animals by humans should be amended. However, it appears that Rifkin’s viewpoint is limited to animals being solely advantageous for humans. While I partially concur with this perspective, I mostly disagree. Rifkin initiates a contemplation on what actions humans can undertake to prevent the killing of animals and the endorsement of inhumane treatment towards our fellow creatures.
In paragraph two, Rifkin supports his argument by utilizing strong language such as “millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption.” Jeremy Rifkin additionally contends that science has demonstrated that the disparities between animals and humans are less significant than we perceive, thus arguing for us to offer animals more “empathy.” I hold a different view. In the natural world, animals naturally prey on and consume each other. If a hawk shows no concern for the feelings of the rabbit it consumes, why should humans behave any differently? Is Rifkin suggesting that nature is incorrect?
Rifkin argues that social contact and toys are necessary for pigs, even though many human children lack these resources. This raises the question of whether animals take precedence over human children and if society should allocate limited resources for pig toys. Those who have owned pets are aware of their ability to experience basic emotions such as pain, happiness, anger, and others. Rifkin, portrayed as an animal rights advocate, relies on a few scientific studies to support his cause. His focus seems to be on animal discomfort, disregarding human suffering and advocating for animals to have more rights than humans.
