Summary Of A Change Of Heart About Animals By Jeremy Rifkin

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin published in the Los Angeles Times on September 1, 2003 Rifkin advocates for the ethical treatment of animals and discusses how people perceive, and at times underestimate, animals and their abilities. Two letters were written, one by Lois Frazier and the other by Bob Stevens, to Rifkin in response to “A Change of Heart About Animals” and were published in the Los Angeles Times editorial section. Each letter expresses the author’s individual opinion on Rifkin’s convictions. Rifkin uses scientific studies, such as the ones conducted at Purdue University on pigs’ social behavior (Source #1 par. 4), to support his belief that

He also claims that, while most people have heard a parrot or mynah bird talk, it is only mimicry and the bird doesn’t actually comprehend what it is saying. While he does not support this claim, most people would agree with him on that point, however, it is a weak argument considering Rifkin discusses Koko, a gorilla who understands and communicates with sign language, in his article. Stevens weakens his own credibility by making false and unsupported claims about Rifkin such as how Rifkin “wants to ignore human suffering” and “wants animals to have more rights than humans”. His only evidence to these allegations would be his assertion that Rifkin believes pigs should be provided with toys, but even this claim is false; Rifkin mentions in his article that Germany encourages pig farmers to provide their pigs with toys to prevent them from fighting but never acknowledges it as his own

She also believes that animals should be treated compassionately and that humans and animals aren’t very different in their feelings and abilities ; which is supported by the studies in Rifkin’s article. She asserts that animals deserve not only our love and respect but that they “have a right to live without being confined, exploited, tormented, or eaten.” She elaborates on this, explaining it as a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle without animal experimentation and fur or leather. Her beliefs are supported by the similarities between animals and humans proven by Rifkin’s studies. For example, the studies funded by McDonald’s found that pigs can suffer from depression and crave affection. Because it has been proven that animals do, just like humans, it can be argued that their suffering is enough evidence to justify their right to live without explanation, but considering that her argument is more extreme that Rifkin’s, it might be helpful if it had more support. In addition, she goes as far to insist that, “meat eating and animal abuse leads to spiritual disturbance and physical disease”. Without giving any evidence to prove its legitimacy, not only does she leave out any way to prove her assertions, her “spiritual disturbance” claim is vague and the reader confused as to what she means. Despite this, the majority of Frazier’s letter is well supported by the