Top critical review
A series of more and more ridiculous assertions dressed up as "science" writing
on 12 March 2017
Oh dear. Is Stephen Budiansky supposed to be a scientist? I know there's such a thing as stifling a book with references, but some references for those enormous sweeping statements would be nice. He paints a picture of dogs as "connivers" and "master manipulators" with zero reference at all, glosses over some of the most crucial findings of his betters (Mech, Scott & Fuller etc - It would have been nice if he'd read their stuff in entirety instead of cherry picking to suit his point) and the bit where he says that bladders probably developed to hold urine instead of letting it go continuously, suggesting some kind of bladder-brain intent on some developmental goal is just outright laughable. I stopped reading at the bladder bit as it got just rather ridiculous. I'm unable to read further as I need to submit to my dogs' master purpose and go and feed them before they take over the universe, kill me and have a Napoleonic party instead of a wake.
Just a thought... If dogs' bladders had a higher developmental goal, surely dogs' paws need to get in on the game? They could develop opposable thumbs and cut out the middleman altogether. The future of humanity is clear: forget Planet of the Apes and think Planet of the Dogs.