Dishonesty, methinks, pays more than honesty.

Dishonesty is oft more lucrative than honesty.
Dishonesty ,unfortunately, is oft  more lucrative than dishonesty.

iq question

W hat day is it today? if "The day before the day before yesterday is 3 days after Saturday, = "The day before the day before yesterday is Tuesday"
1) hence ...yesterday is Tuesday. =...Wednesday hence "The day before the day before Wednesday "but ...the day before Wednesday = Tuesday hence "The day before Tuesday" = Monday.
2) OR ...the day before yesterday= 2 days ago hence  'The day before 2 days ago is Tuesday " hence ...2 days ago is Tuesday =Thursday hence "The day before Thursday"  = Wednesday
3) OR The day before...=yesterday=1 day previous hence "Yesterday yesterday yesterday is Tuesday" = "3 days previous is Tuesday" =Friday (correct answer me thinks)
It appears if one takes out "is" ( shan't it have read, "The day before the day before yesterday WAS three days after Saturday. what day is it today?") the answer changes.  eg. from 1) ...the day before Wednesday = Tuesday is true BUT ...the day before "was/is" Wednesday=Tuesday is false.
So 1) changes to "The day before the day before was Wednesday " and  "...the day before was Wednesday =was Thursday hence "The day before was Thursday" = was Friday.

Over medicinized in N.A. 2010 A.D.

The science of medicine should find chemicals that should promote longevity and decrease misery.
For society, increasing one's life may not be good economically but decreasing one's misery helps by at least lessening the spread of the misery to others in society. However, it is a tenet in society to keep one alive as long as possible (without life support) ie life supersedes economics, happiness etc. Society's view on misery is not as high on the scale. Society would prefer one doesn't suffer but will tolerate one's suffering over the possible decrease in one's life.
The idealized pharmacy would dispense pills which would increase life and/or decrease misery, and educate on proper use of the pill. However, most pharmacies are not ideal. Their main objective is to sell as many pills as possible.Mostly corporations are in the medicine business. Corporations objectives are to make profits. Although the science of medicine can and does achieve this objective, this is not the only way to get people to takes pills. Herein lies the over medication of the masses.
The corporate pillmakers, through the guise of science, have skewed the data such that in is difficult to know the truth of the pills. The main tools they have used and continue to use to encourage pill usage include i) burying data ii) buying influential people in the medical field through a quid pro quo system iii) advertising to a gullible public. iv) advanced statistics. v) creating new diseases and/or lowering parameters of what is considered a disease. The gov't has set up what the pillmakers can/can't say but they are under staffed, lazy and under paid. There is little incentive to be a hero.
Through these methods, the pill prescriber will give the taker what the pill maker has created. It is pleasant for the pill prescriber to go with the zeitgeist and painful to go against. Again, there is little incentive to be a hero. The only resistance to this pill pushing machine is patent expirations, gov't's affordability to pay, insurance unwillingness to pay, etc.
Even if the pill making companies were to step aside, pill prescribers and pharmacies are a capitation business. The prescriber ensures repeat business by giving pills. The pharmacy, too, can only exist if people are taking pills. There is no negative feedback. In fact the more pills the better.

responsibility

I love the idea that one's choices determines one's path. Since one chose decision A, one must accept the consequences and take responsibility for one's choice. It deems of a godlike quality. The chooser is the conductor of the future domain. A little thought and a lot of this idea is not absolutely right. A system favours characteristics. A quick look of some systems in early 21st century clearly show this. Pro basketball seems to favour tall and the lanky people. Pro hockey certainly has favoured those who had the parents who invested time and money into the cost of equipment, the hours of driving to and from practices, games etc. I bet there are few people in post secondary colleges with IQ's less than 100. I doubt few would argue this. So why do we see this argument in people's who have fallen short. I've never heard people complain about short people who refuse to clamber hard enough to take their representative numbers in the NBA. They justifiably don't say Aboriginal's fall short because they have lower IQ's at least those that deem this despicable. They'd more likely say that it is their work ethic, a value they themselves believe due to their own experiences. IQ is endowed while work can be done by most, easily proven by the long barrel of a gun. A lack of work on reservations, a lack of education and a culture where this is the norm, a history of injustice then a perception of being given advice by the same people who displayed those injustices, a yen for keeping an identity and not being melded into the perceived culture who has and is currently viewed as oppressive and racist, even when the current group of people are thousands of miles away from the first Europeans in attitude and civility.

Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets1,2

For athletic performance I'd use the axiom a species evolves to it's environment.  That is eat what your ancestors ate.  I'd say the evidence suggests human's are omnivore, eating more meat in the diet as they  lived closer to the poles-http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/682- A quick scan of food calories should dispel the notion we are herbivores eg. one'd would have to eat 38 plus cups of raspberries, 27 plus heads of lettuce, or 21 plus apples per day to equal 2500 calories