Because You Never Asked

      (This essay was written way back in the early 90's and should be read with its companion, "Animal Rights and Dean Koontz")

     Tick, tick, tick, tick . one of the most long standing, popular shows in American TV history is the CBS news magazine, "60 Minutes". I consider this show America's official one hour of sobriety.

     The content of the average American's life revolves around 2 things: 1) earning money and, 2) figuring out how to have "fun" with it (although for many people the second task has become superfluous, earning money having become their only form of fun). Except for rare mutants generally relegated to nerd-like status, this "fun" almost never has anything to do with intellect, grace, beauty, passion, knowledge or something which might truly enrich one's stay on this planet. It is an almost pure strain of beer lathered, Nintendo-jet ski escapism, best described as adolescent and meant to ward off an American's most dreaded enemy --- boredom. The perfect American vacation is much more an atmosphere of total diversionary stimuli than pleasant relaxation, and the jargon of a successful one are comments like "there was so much to do", or "never a dull moment". Trying to enjoy one's vacation can be very hard work indeed.

     This Vegas-Disneyland attitude has become an integral part of the American quest for fulfillment. Fun! Can I really be enjoying life if I'm not having fun all the time? Fun! It's become our Holy Grail.

     This is where "60 Minutes" comes in. For one hour every Sunday evening, with the grim specter of Monday morning looming ominously on the horizon, America puts aside its implements of frivolity --- the beer cans, video games, and bungee cords --- and gets serious. We will de-tox for one hour, then pop another brewsky and feel as if our opinions are based upon something solid, yeah, that's right, I know something too.

     In spite of the fact that this show's purpose is to procure advertising dollars and not to enlighten anyone, I occasionally let it enter my consciousness, especially if I have nothing more stimulating to do, like scraping paint or defrosting the refrigerator. But they recently did a piece that seemed so poorly thought out, that whatever respect I might have had for the show is perhaps permanently damaged.

     It seems there existed a laboratory on the campus of Louisiana State University where they were doing research on bullet wounds to the head. As far as I know, only human beings are inflicting such wounds (who knows, maybe they are teaching dolphins to shoot Japanese computer chip scientists?), but these researchers were putting bullets in the heads of cats. By so doing, they hoped to deal more successfully with people who might find such projectiles in their heads, an occurrence we can surely count on.

     Mike Wallace, with his ever present, self righteous, muckraking-in-the-greatest-tradition-of-responsible-journalism mode, was in charge. Almost immediately, Mike was appalled by the irresponsible disruption of such research, especially since one of the scientists involved was assuring him they were learning a lot about bullet holes in people's heads . like hey! you could get killed! I would guess they were learning a hell of a lot more about bullet holes in cats' heads. Perhaps in a few years, when a cat wanders into a chicano gunfight in East L.A., they'll have more chance to save it. But I'm no scientist.

     If "60 Minutes" had such a negative attitude about animal rights activists, I'll never understand why they chose to defend this kind of research instead of something that had to do with curing cancer or some other disease. It's one thing to find a cure for a fortuitous disease we haven't consciously created, and quite another to kill and maim intelligent life forms because we as a species have developed this habit of shooting each other.

     Mike Wallace, his show, and the scientists involved are missing some transcendent points here. The "bleeding heart" attitude would hold that just because we've invented Kevlar doesn't give us the right to kill any species that hasn't. I'm not embarrassed to admit my own concurrence with such feelings, but that is not the crux of the dilemma.

     The real point is this: the attitudes embodied by the animal rights activists suppose a revolutionary change in the thought processes of human beings. The civil disobedience displayed in destroying a laboratory is always open to question in a supposedly civilized society, but, in spite of the doubts I have with regard to such actions, I can't help but philosophically side with the perpetrators of these acts. Such universally accepted repugnance for the harm gratuitously inflicted on other living things would have to effect the way in which human beings relate to each other. Such change in attitude would have a devastating effect on the number of bullets we put in each other's heads, thus rendering bullet hole research superfluous. An animal rights attitude would save far more lives than the research alluded to in Mike Wallace's report.

     But what about the more difficult philosophical question of using animals to find cures for diseases? Which brings me to . (see essay "Animal Rights and Dean Koontz").

     Relevant Material: "It's not the Americans I find bothersome, but rather, 'North Americanism'. This is a social disease of the post industrial world that will contaminate the mercantile nations one by one. (.)  Its symptoms are a loss of ethics in business (.) and a constant necessity for external stimulation. (.) In its final phases, the patient is reduced almost exclusively to the procurement of the most trivial of human pursuits; the search for fun". From the novel "Shibumi", by the enigmatic genius, Trevanian.