In one of his most controversial articles, Jeremy Rifkin sheds light on a unraveling case of animal exploitation in the food industry. It comes to no surprise that there would be an uproar of protests at slaughterhouses, farms and corporate offices, yet these large industry stay unaffected as the public has truth of what they are hiding. Groups like Animal Liberation Front, Animal Justice Project, and the Humane Society have all the same agenda; none are opposed to humans hunting for food in the wild, there problem is with animals thinking that they just live on this Earth to just be bred and slaughtered. No matter how many humans we overpopulate, we will always must always share this one and only Earth with these animals.
An interesting point is brought up by Lois Frazier points and proves Rifkin's point of human and animal relationship. With pets, such as dogs, they thrive on love and compassion rather than isolation and obedience. Because of this “man’s best friend” thinking, humans have been able to train and even rely on animals to become more than pets. But why do humans rely on beasts rather than other humans, is it because our compassion tends to soften the animals? It's not humans are too nice to kill animals, we’ve done it before and forced species extinct, but we have learned through trial and error that our care and research can prolong the life of a
…show more content…
He concludes that Rifkin is advocating for more animal rights than human rights due to his comment on toys and animals. But this comment was almost taken completely out of context as Stevens says not all humans have access to toys so animals automatically have more rights? This clearly is misleading and Rifkin simply wants these animals that are held in captivity from birth to slaughter to be able to have an outlet of social interaction with inanimate