Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

In the article “A change of heart about animals” author Jeremy Rifkin uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade humanity in a desperate attempt to at the very least have empathy for “our fellow creatures” on account of the numerous research done in pursuit of animal rights. Rifkin explains here that animals are more like us than we imagined, that we are not the only creatures that experience complex emotions, and that we are not the only ones who deserve empathy. Rifkin’s audience is extremely clear. He is reaching for all anti-activist and his unintended audience would be like-minded animal activists. Rifkin makes a very desperate attempt to persuade people of animal empathy in this article. He proves he is reaching

Rifkin though being a well educated man with great values, is treated as an outsider and “anti-science” activist. However this assumption made by many is false; He does actually have science on his side and he does actually have people who believe him. Rifkin has been publicly criticized by more powerful, behind-the-scenes politicians and businessmen because of his anti-meat criticism, and his empathy activism. Rifkins tone used in his writings on empathy for animal activism is that of desperation and of pure humility. So it can be said that Jermy Rifkin does in fact know what he is talking about, he is overqualified in almost eveyway, and he speaks through truth out of love for all

He discusses "animals subjected every year to agonizing research center experiments"(Rifkin) and "raised under the most heartless conditions." He additionally cites that animals are "for butcher and human utilization." These words, words like subjected, coldhearted, and butcher have staggeringly negative meanings and infer thoughts of ruthlessness and viciousness. On the off chance that we take after Rifkin 's reasoning, and animals resemble individuals, and we butcher (for eating no less) and place needles in their eyes in a lab- - that is essentially unsatisfactory. This is the thing that Rifkin need us to get it. For Rifkin, this is the present circumstance however it doesn 't need to be. On the off chance that people comprehend that animals are particularly similar to us, we will need them to be treated with the same admiration and poise. Right now, we are not doing this. However, we can. Not only does Rifkin imply that we that the scientific discoveries that he summarizes should change the way we feel about animals, but he is desperately reaching for a change in action as well. questioning things like “Should wild lions be caged in zoos”(Rifkin) and most importantly asking the question of what all this means to the way we will treat “our fellow creatures”(Rifkin). Now I ask you after reading this rhetorical