A recent study asked if we were walking our dogs enough. Disappointingly, there was an important voice missing from the data.
Science can prove many things. It proves that a submarine can also be a vehicle for hubris, it can prove that everything good is actually bad, and it proves, most of all, that we’re going to be murdered at any second, and it’s all our fault. Click, share and worry.
All of which doesn’t really help us teach us to better navigate our short time here. As far as I see it, there’s a disconnect between the findings and reality. Eg: nanotechnology made of stem cells will see us create better AI, but we’re yet to see this AI, and ask it if it is smarter than your average smartphone. It doesn’t help us in our everyday lives, beyond inventing more confusion. Are they advancements, or not?
Recently, I stumbled over a study that asked if we were walking our dogs enough. Spoiler alert, we weren’t, but it took a group of rather serious human minds to come to a hypothesis on behalf of our canine pals.
Per the study: “…it seems that 40% of Australian dogs are not walked enough and that a similar percentage of dogs are overweight or obese. With colleagues at the University of Sydney, we are interested in collecting more recent data on these trends.”
They might have dogs, and they might have measured dogs, but dogs they certainly are not. Fortunately, we have a subject of the study available for comment, a very good boy who has signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement and has decided to exclusively speak to TBS.
The Big Smoke: Bingley! Who za good professional journalist? Huh? Yes you are! Yes! Now, I —
Bingley: Hello hello hello hello hello hello.
Yes, hello to you, Bingley, you silly boy. Now, sit, ye–yes, that’s good, now do you back the findings of the study? Are you walked enough?
Walk!? We go for walk!? walk!
Later, but do you feel that the data is accurate. Are you walked enough?
That’s okay, Bingley. It’s my fault. Do I take you on enough walkies?