Never mind the mind-boggling rise of Q conspiracists and Trump worshippers. The more obvious indicator of devolution in America — and of the human race, for that matter — is staring us right in the face, or mouth as it were. It's called, simply, the "spork."
"The spork is a prime example of the debasement of our species," writes food historian Ken Albala in his cheeky Guardian essay, "Why I am anti-spork: a spoon maker's rant about a silly invention."
"Everyone who has ever tried to use it realizes the idiocy of the contraption," he continues, complaining that the hybrid item works effectively neither as a spoon nor a fork.
"Instead, it combines the worst features of both utensils: liquid spills through the diminutive tines before soup hits the lips, and the tines themselves are too blunt to easily puncture and convey to the mouth anything that might be considered solid food," he explains.
Albala goes on to describe the origins of the spork, a term that was trademarked in 1951, before revealing the two top reasons, or "patently absurd excuse," for the "hybrid cutlery's" fame. One reason, naturally, has to do with the corporate profits, being that sporks are most commonly used in fast food chains. Why hand out two "free" utensils when only one will do?
And as for the second reason:
Perhaps the success of the spork may also be attributed to the fact that Americans never really became comfortable using a knife and fork. We tend to cut food with a knife in the right hand and a fork in the left, and then trade the utensils in order to eat. We also keep the tines of the fork upward like a scoop, unlike in Europe, where the fork stays in the left hand and the tines point downward. This is apparently because Americans first began to use forks in the 17th century, before they fully evolved in Europe. In any case, it might explain why many people were happy jettisoning the fork entirely in favor of the spork.
You can read Albala's entire essay here.
Previously: The splayd outdoes the spork as the most dynamic utensil
