Dear Editor:

A Change of Heart About Animals by Jeremy Rifkin, an article that is nothing more than a sugarcoated opinion about a
much more complex topic. Rifkin, an animal rights activist, believes that animals should be treated in the same manner we
treat our fellow humans. It makes sense that he would only provide one side of this topic, that being in favor of equal
rights. I greatly disagree with the claims made in this article. With all the injustices occurring on a daily basis, animals
should not be our main concern.

According to the research Rifkin did, the main thing that separates humans and animals is the ability to grieve.
According to Rifkin, ...when it comes to the ultimate test of what distinguishes humans from the other creatures,
scientists have long believed that mourning for the dead represents the real divide. Rifkin claims this to be the main
difference between humans and animals. But according Audubon, what seems like mourning may actually be confusion.
Rifkins statement is simply not true, what really sets us apart is the ability to self reflect. Any animal can be taught
almost anything a human can, but can they self-reflect? To be simple, the answer is no. Very few people actually reach
self-actualization. Animals aren't capable of waking up one day being able to see themselves in different perceptions.
The fact that most people
cant do that means that animals, being lesser beings, cant either,

The proper treatment of animals is sure to cost a hefty price. These include hiring and training workers to care for the
animals, building new facilities, and passing laws to enforce these new ways. An increase in the protection of animals
would be a great hit towards the world wide economy. This is due to The Law of Demand. This states that as prices
increase on a product/service demand for it will decrease and vice versa. As people buy less and less, suppliers have to
cut prices leading to an overall decrease in money. Eventually they will stop producing. With the previously mentioned
price increases, demand for animal products will decrease, leading to even worse consequences. Animals will roam the
earth, with their greatest predator, humans, out of the picture. For a proper example of this, we can look at India. Due
religious reasons, Indian people dont eat cows and worship them. They let them roam the streets and into their homes.
This is one of the main reason that the living standards in India are very poor.

There are 2.5 million homeless children in the United States according to the American Institute for Research. WomenAid
International states that there are 100 million homeless children living in the streets around the world. 250,000 children
die every week from diseases and malnutrition, 2 million children are objects of sexual abuse, and 12 million of those
children die before reaching their fifth year. Now Rifkin brings up the fact that pigs deserve special treatments, In Rifkin's
view, ...encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys
to prevent them from fighting. Now I guarantee you that more pigs have shelters and toys than the previously mentioned
children. The real reason I bring this up is because what type of person places animal comfort over the basic rights of
humans?

In conclusion, I do not believe that Rifkin's argument is good enough to convey a proper discussion towards his values. I
say this because he only provides a one-sided position on this subject, meaning that all opposing sides of this topic are left
unopened. So what should we do when it comes towards the treatment of animals? Nothing, it would be in humanities
greatests interests to keep things the way they currently are. We should keep things the way they are and focus on human
value rather than the lesser beings. Therefore, I believe that Jeremy Rifkins stance on this subject is in the wrong.

Sincerely,

Ashraf Owda