Your newspaper recently published an editorial by Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century and president of the foundation on economic trends. The essay is entitled "A Change of Heart about Animals." In this essay Rifkin cites scientific studies about pigs, birds, and a monkey that all point to animals potentially having much greater intelligence and capacity to feel than we often give them credit for. He also speaks about various movements in support of animal rights and advocated greater empathy from humans to animals.(Rifkin 34-35) Rifkin's focus on animal empathy seems entirely detached from the reality of the situation; his piece fails to consider the socioeconomic implications of extended animal rights.
The most immediate and noticeable …show more content…
Give it about 60 years and the economy would re-stabilize. Some industries may benefit many would suffer and die. Eventually the world would move on. This does, however beg the question: Is the economic risk worth the overall result? Well...no it isn't. The overall result of this animal empathy will be more human-like treatment of animals. While this may sound very appealing it loses a lot of its gleam when you consider how animals treat each other in nature. The eagle doesn't acknowledge the fish's pain as it is ripped to pieces while gasping for air, the lion is impassive towards the gazelle whose flesh is being ripped from its form. In nature, it is kill or be killed. Although humans have evolved to the point where we can devote some attention to honoring the animals that help us build our society, we should not degenerate our society to account for their feelings. One such story of degeneration is of Kevin Martin, a man whose research of AIDS medication was halted by the Swiss Health Department on account of an ethic review that had already been approved by other organizations.(Yong 39) Another example are animals farmed for meat consumption. Although ultimately, they are born just to die, they aren't killed for the sake of killing; They are killed to aid human society. As callous as it sounds, animals having more rights would work to stagnate human progress due to extra regulations both legally and
The most immediate and noticeable …show more content…
Give it about 60 years and the economy would re-stabilize. Some industries may benefit many would suffer and die. Eventually the world would move on. This does, however beg the question: Is the economic risk worth the overall result? Well...no it isn't. The overall result of this animal empathy will be more human-like treatment of animals. While this may sound very appealing it loses a lot of its gleam when you consider how animals treat each other in nature. The eagle doesn't acknowledge the fish's pain as it is ripped to pieces while gasping for air, the lion is impassive towards the gazelle whose flesh is being ripped from its form. In nature, it is kill or be killed. Although humans have evolved to the point where we can devote some attention to honoring the animals that help us build our society, we should not degenerate our society to account for their feelings. One such story of degeneration is of Kevin Martin, a man whose research of AIDS medication was halted by the Swiss Health Department on account of an ethic review that had already been approved by other organizations.(Yong 39) Another example are animals farmed for meat consumption. Although ultimately, they are born just to die, they aren't killed for the sake of killing; They are killed to aid human society. As callous as it sounds, animals having more rights would work to stagnate human progress due to extra regulations both legally and