An Elbow In Time (Parts I and II)
One day Samantha, or "Sam," as those of us in the office knew her, got fired. I wasn't in the cubes for her final punching of the clock, but I heard news of it drifting over the quarter- and half-walls soon thereafter.
This update wasn't supposed to be about Sam nor about her unceremonious departure. But it's sort of turning out that way. Actually, what you're looking at is part of the original update, first posted the end of October, and part cobbled together bits, "tacked on," as it were, in early November.
Yes, Sam always was a complicated person to work with. It doesn't surprise me it took more than one attempt to properly address her story. Also, that a risky piece involving Samantha begins with the words "One day..." is fitting. To me, those two simple words often foreshadow a static, poignant moment in a rushing montage of developments, developments many and diverse and taking place over, perhaps, thousands of years. And this static moment, this "frozen-instance" of one grouping, one action, one something or other typifies the aggregate changes that transpired at or about the same time. Typifies or points toward what eventually became widely if not universally considered a "catalyst," if that's the correct word. Yes, I'm convinced that "elbows" do in fact exist along what is alleged to be the "linear" pathway of history. That is, in a relatively short period of time a large number of modest changes occur, and that at the end of this period or age, there will have occurred a ninety degree turn, or a relatively big change. And, often, what kicked off this "elbow" can be narrowed down to one quintessential or archetypical grouping or event. As with Sam.
Maybe it's just me, but when I first spy text that begins with "One day..." right away I'm thinking, "OK, here comes an elbow."
But Sam didn't work with us for thousands of years. Actually, she lasted less than one year. Not really long enough to amass a fatal collection of demerits... or so I thought. She did, however, stick around long enough--and we sat together in the lunch room often enough--for her to divulge her theory.
You see, Sam's theory isn't the kind you'd, for instance, overhear on the elevator. It's a bit involved. In fact it's so involved I highly suggest (if you haven't done so already) reading three or four of my other pieces before continuing here.
I think it was early spring, while she and I lounged on the lawn--away from the smoking area, out of earshot of everyone really--when she told me about her "pork" theory. I remember bumblebees buzzing around and the twitters of swallows in the soffits of the Admin building, which is why I place this conversation in the early spring. This could be a false memory, however, or an addled one; either way, I'm taking it with a grain of salt--and so should you.
"Herbert's never been to New York, has he?"
(Author's note: I just overheard this gem while peeking over the shoulders of two surfing friends. And, no: they didn't know I was nearby, eavesdropping.)
My friend has me pegged though: I've never been to that island, nor any of its boroughs, nor have I set foot in that entire state. I have, however, eaten pork. Sam said that for the longest time it was unsafe for humans to porcine dine. Alas, a very brave and smart people encouraged everyone who could read or interpret what they'd chiseled onto their holy tablets to refrain from eating the snouts, the chitlins, the corkscrew tails, heck, everything associated with them hawgs.
No, they preached, don't eat it. No nibblin'.
And--due to their unflagging perseverance--a lot of lives were saved: people didn't die from ingesting the harmful bacteria commonly found in raw pork.
But then along came...
...George Foreman. (Here, he poses with his mother.) Mr. Foreman demonstrated that if we merely cooked them little piggies a little hotter, a little longer, we'd kill their harmful bugs--and then they were safe to eat. Tasty even.
Couple things: I do remember something in the above about a "grain of salt," and two, it's Sam's theory, not mine, and for us to dissect and analyze her theory to death just because it contains some historical anachronisms, well, blame her, not me. Yes, George Foreman's name crossed her lips, but truly I think she was metaphorically referring to "humans cooking with fire."
Anyway, human nature being what it is, and pork being so yummy, it's not hard to imagine that prehistoric people ate it however they could find it. Yep: raw. And they got sick. Some even died. Then rumors would circulate in their tribe/clan, rumors linking pork consumption to illness and death, resulting in a pork ban. But then years would go by and someone else would grow hungry and forgetful... and more bleeding raw pork would be gnawed.
One might posit that this cycle continued until the advent of the written word. Which would be an intelligent postulation, but--according to Sam--wrong.
Unless of course the formation of Judaism and the invention of the written word coincided. Not likely. In Sam's extrapolation many verbal admonitions against pork consumption must have been orated over the years, spoken by wise and aged and trusted kin. All to no avail. Or at least no significant avail. Then, many written admonitions against doing so must have been scribbled or chiseled; and again: the compliance rates remained unhealthy. Evidently not healthy enough, not if it took establishing a bi-law or tenet in the Jewish religion for people to actually get it.
But now we know different.
And here's where Sam made her comparison. Sam said that in the same way that a lot of us have come around on consuming pork, there's another activity that most of us have traditionally considered unacceptable, but now we know different.
Homosexuality.
I think this was Samantha's way of giving me the slip. You see, I had the hots for Sam and we saw each after work a few times; but when she surmised I was pulling in for a close-up, she pulled out her "pork" theory. I guess it was her way of letting me down easy.
Sam said that when humans were still struggling to be a surviving species--let alone a dominant species like we are now--that it was imperative for all women to bear as many children as possible, as often as possible. Hence, homosexuality got a bad rap in varied and far-flung places, places like the Old Testament, for instance.
But now, according to Sam, it's different. We've reached the point where survival of the species is a given; to Nature, if a fair to middling chunk of the populace wants to "bat for the same team," it's not that big of a deal. In fact, with the threat of overpopulation looming, perhaps it could be a good thing.
I disagree with her of course. But for a different reason than you might guess. However much I find homosexuality distasteful (which, by the way, I find it sickening), I think Sam's theory is interesting. Interesting, but flawed. I'm not sure if you'll agree that the below completely refutes her theory, but I'm sure Samantha herself would do some backpedaling if she caught wind of it. Which is part of the problem: since her abrupt termination, we no longer keep in touch. Oh well.
Anyway, here goes.
It's pretty simple really: in the above, transpose "incest" for "homosexuality." A long time ago, when we were still struggling to reproduce enough to survive, incest, USING SAM'S STYLE OF THINKING, was not the worst option. In other words, while homosexuality--due to it not leading to reproduction--works against our being a successful species, engaging in incest, on the other hand, since it can (and does) lead to reproduction, is better than going extinct.
But then, after we'd established ourselves as a surviving species, an "elbow" in history happened. Incestuous relations, if carried to term, too often result in birth defects; this is Nature's way of culling the weak. Here, some might insert words like "bad" or "unacceptable." Nevertheless, our history books are speckled with examples of mentally retarded royalty who--because of arranged inter-marrying, arranged precisely to keep the money in the family--ascended to the throne, and vacationed in Crawford a lot.
Fast forward to now. Since most of the offspring who are survivors of birth defects (due to their parents being too closely related to each other) can't effectively reproduce, does that not put them in the same boat as homosexuals?
According to Sam, overpopulation would be devastating, and the threat of overpopulation is real; since one of the side-effects of a segment of the population going gay is a decrease in reproductive strength, it follows that a certain amount of gayness--as long as it's not too rampant--might end up not only not being a bad thing, it might be a good thing. Using that same logic, wouldn't it also not be too terribly harmful if a smattering of us, as a result of incestuous relations, gave birth to genetically-inferior and/or sterile children?
In other words Sam--while employing a certain logic--proposed that there's nothing wrong with being gay; I say if that's true--and if I'm allowed to employ her same logic--then there's also nothing wrong with incest. But I most certainly do think there's plenty wrong with incest.
I may be in the minority, but I think overpopulation is a long ways off. To use the threat of overpopulation as an excuse to engage in non-Disneyesque sex is a wimpy excuse. Humans seem prone to thin out the herd at the drop of a hat. This planet could probably hold trillions of us, most of us standing sideways and sharing a lot. But sharing... that's a whole nother update.
to another "one day..."-related exposition