To the Editor:

Re “A Change of Heart about Animals,” by Jeremy Rifkin (Los Angeles Times, September 1 st,
2003)

For centuries we have been using agriculture to better humanity. To more than just feed our
people, but to provide almost everything anyone could ever need. Clothing, housing,
transportation, and so much more. But we may be giving, and taking, too much, and causing
more pain than ever thought. In Rifkin's article, he presents findings from modern science
studies and provides credible sources to those claims of the state of consciousness in various
animals. They feel pain, feel emotions, and mourn for their deceased kin, just like us.

Rifkin uses studies from several different sources, from McDonalds to Oxford University. In all of
his examples he uses detailed examples for every aspect of what we believe to be evidence of
consciousness, and he touches up on what we think consciousness is, and I appreciate that.
Rifkin also details how those findings have influenced the world today by changing laws and
certain regulations to accommodate for the new findings, and to maintain a moral standard.
Throughout the article it is demonstrated that Rifkin does extensive research on any topic
presented to him and does said topic justice, such work is in my opinion very hard and time
consuming, I praise the hard work.

Rifkin just pulls a little at my heartstrings, just enough to get me to think. With the example of the
elephants displaying their feeling of grief, an emotion so strong in any human and one that
everyone has experienced, for me that is a noteworthy fact. Rifkin brings in a question from a
scientist named Stefin M. Siviy, asking “if you believe in the theory of evolution through natural
selection, how can you say that consciousness just popped out of nowhere only in humans?” or
something like that, the point is that Siviy has a point. As I know, the theory states “if an animal
develops a trait that gives it a leg-up on the other competition, the competition will evolve to eat
that animal's leg. Or develop the same or similar trait.” If someone believes in such a theory,
then it would be contradictory to say that only humans have consciousness. He also asks so
many questions that make me ponder the future of animal rights, if we go far enough mankind
might not be able to have the same benefits that we have today, or there will be no change and
no one bothered to ponder such a dilemma.

There are many things that I think can be done about this new moral fallacy. First of all, I think
that this information should become widely known, that way, if new animal rights are passed
based on their consciousness, people will be informed and receptive to such things. I do firmly
believe that accommodations need to be made for the new findings, like to treat farm animals
more humanely. However, if things are taken too far too quickly, like no more meat of any kind
or milk, say tomorrow, people will not react well to that, and when more sensible things are
proposed the population will likely not listen to any animal rights proposal based on their
consciousness because of the previous, outrageous, proposal. If things are going to change
then it should be slowly.

Sincerely,

Anthony Vallis

Brentwood, CA

The writer is a teenager that does extensive research into random topics for no reason, and
contemplates several universal questions at once for extended periods of time on any given day
in a week. ( I don’t know if the bio line is meant to be on the writer of the article or me. )