35 People Are Sharing Clever Tips That Could One Day Save Your Life

I reached out to Jack to get his opinion about how important fitness is when it comes to surviving unexpected emergencies. Especially in modern times, as compared to way back in the past.

"Realistically, having a good level of fitness isn’t as important as it was hundreds of years ago," Jack told Bored Panda. He noted that "massive technological advances" have improved our chances of survival, meaning that we're capable of a lot more than our ancestors. However, this doesn't change the need to get fit. There are plenty of upsides to doing this.

"Having a high level of fitness grants you the best life possible," he said.

Fitness expert Jack listed the positives that come from getting and keeping fit: "More energy, better mood, longer life, and higher quality of life."

Meanwhile, he added that getting a check-up at your doctor once a year is generally enough for most people. 

Staying safe is a weird state of being when you think about it. There is never any guarantee that you won’t get hurt. No matter how prepared you are, something will always (eventually) go wrong (given enough time). In short, you can’t be ready for everything, but you can be ready to overcome at least some of the challenges that will undoubtedly come flying your way. Trying to think of all the possible ways in which you could get hurt can lead to analysis paralysis and you won't get much done in life this way.

Keeping physically and mentally fit can make you better suited to tackling those challenges. Having a few survival skills and the willingness to reach out for professional help when you’re unsure about your health are things that also don’t hurt your chances of living a long and happy life.

However, just because the internet is a wonderful place full of animal memes doesn’t make it 100% accurate. Unfortunately, the net is full of misinformation and fake news that can be a tad tough to separate from the kernels of truth in between.

Lee McIntyre, from Boston University, explained to me how we should approach fact-checking. He told Bored Panda earlier that we should prioritize finding accurate sources of information and reliable news websites. Though all sources make mistakes from time to time, reliable ones make fewer and they’re less likely to be biased.

“It would be exhausting to fact check every single news item we hear. In fact, insisting on this degree of skepticism is something that demagogues use to get us to be cynical, because when we doubt that it is possible to know the truth—even when it is staring us in the face—we are riper to their manipulation. So I'd say the best thing with news is to do a little investigation into finding a reliable source," Lee said.

"Look for an organization that does investigative journalism (and doesn't just repeat information from other sources), double sources its quotations, discloses conflicts of interest, etc. Once we've found that we can relax a bit and trust the reporting behind the stories. Do we still need to be on guard? Yes. Even The New York Times can make mistakes. Or individual reporters can have biases. But that doesn't mean 'all sources are equal.'"

Lee explained that media literacy is vital. It’s also something that kids are taught from a very early age in some parts of the world. So we don’t have an excuse not to give it the attention it deserves.

“There are various sources for media literacy that can help. They teach this to KIDS in Finland! It's easy to learn. Is the story copyrighted? Is it dated? Is there a byline? Are other stories by the author solid? Is it published in a source that has been reliable in the past? Does it seem plausible— if not then you can do some research," the expert said.

"Will we get fooled sometimes in doing this? Yes. But we're going to get fooled sometimes anyway. It's analogous to how scientists form their beliefs. They are skeptics, but they also—at some point when the evidence is sufficient—give their assent. Scientists deal with warrant, not 'proof.' They are what philosophers call 'fallibilists.' You give your belief to things that are well-sourced with evidence, while always holding out the possibility that if further evidence comes to light that contradicts your belief, you should give it up because you might be wrong."