The theme of our blogs is
“Animals and Us” and as I was reading “The Wild World of Animal Prostheses” by
Carolyn Sayre, I was thinking to myself; there couldn’t be a better article to
connect the evolving relationship humans have made to animals. For years humans
and animals have been dependent on each other throughout experiments, testing,
and research purposes. Sayre emphasizes this relationship through the many
times she related it back to her intended audience; humans. She repeatedly
explains that every prosthetic we make for an animal will help further the
things we can do for humans, more specifically amputees.
Right from the
beginning she includes pathos. She wants us to feel something for the animals
that have lost limbs before she explains the logos of how animal prosthetics
work. Sayre’s audience is the average person, for TIME is a very common
magazine, therefore the article continues to switch between logos and pathos so
she could keep the general public interested. What do you think the effect of
this pattern between the two was? Would you have stayed interested if she used
more pathos?
Something else that we have to take into consideration is the
money we are spending for research on wild animals to receive prosthetics. Do
you think it would become the normal for people to spend thousands of dollars
on a prosthetic leg for their dog that will only live for a maximum of five
more years anyway? I don’t know any three-legged pets but if we think about the
money spent on dogs as it is, and add in what people would pay for prosthetics,
we would be doubling our already tremendous budget of 58 billion. Now imagine
your own pet, or the pet of someone you love…would you spend thousands of
dollars on your pet for a leg when they would be perfectly happy and get used
to hobbling around on three legs?
No comments:
Post a Comment