Um..... I do.

That's called science. And it's why I took a more modern chemo drug instead of the old standard. Because scientists are willing to look and study and try new things - evolve if you will.

I have looked!
But I still do not understand your question, if it is not about why organisms die.

Wrote another response...this time only to PDM's last two entries...but after numerous redactions, trying it longer, trying it shorter (for those of you who would obviously prefer that), concentration pressured by preparing for more planes, trains, and automobiles...I decided after all the preceding that I like your solution of ice cream better than pushing the rock up the hill again (as in my previous Sisyphean reference).

Enjoy yours. I will mine and will re-engage another time.

(...also...a former chemo imbiber)

And we've reached consensus! YAY!
Now if we can convince the other 7 billion people to reach a similar consensus, we wouldn't have to spend so much effort or money on destroying things.

I think it's good to agree that we can disagree.

But I have no ice cream in the house, so that is a bit sad

I am all for the Ice Cream Unification Theory.

BTW, consensus does not mean everyone agrees. It means everyone reaches a point where many agree and the rest are willing to abstain.

i'll second that. my headspace is boredom rather than consensus....

Jilly is exactly right, Wikipedia defines consensus as

"Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent, not necessarily the agreement, of participants and the resolution of objections. ... Consensus should not be confused with unanimity or solidarity."

So it means the group agrees the statement is the best it's going to get with the current parameters.

A minister, a physicist, a chemist, a mathematician and a little girl were stranded on a desert isle when a can of food was spotted bobbing up and down in the surf as it neared the beach. The minister drops to his knees and proclaims [quote=The Minister][i] “Oh [u]THANK[/u] you Lord for answering my prayers and sending us food”![/i] [/quote] The physicist, chemist, and mathematician look at each other and then say to the minister [quote=the Physicist, the Chemist, the Mathematician] [i]“Don’t be ridiculous, it floated out of the galley of a sinking boat. No divine intervention was involved otherwise "God" would have sent a case instead of just one can!”[/i] [/quote] An argument ensues between the four men...becoming more heated by the moment, each man gesticulating ever more wildly, voices rising, faces contorting... The little girl...looking back and forth between the now shouting men...gradually becomes more and more impatient. Finally in exasperation she tugs at the shirt of one of the men and says [quote=The Little Girl] [i]“Who [u]cares[/u]...can we just eat it”?[/i] [/quote] After a moment of stunned silence, all of the men turned their attention to the can and realized... No one had a can opener. Gathered around it, looking down at it, the can almost seemed to take on an “air of mystery” they had never experienced before! The way the manufacturer had made the can was not the "simple thing” they had always considered it to be. They also began to realize that neither collectively nor individually did any of them know [u]exactly[/u] how the can was sealed-up so that it remained airtight...or...whether or not dashing it on the rocks or trying to cut into it with a stone would cause an uncontrolled bursting of its precious contents all over the sand. Suddenly and quietly, [i]almost as if by silent [u]concensus[/u][/i]...[i]“[color:#CC0000]Who was right?!?!?[/color]”[/i]... regarding the [u]origin[/u] of how the can entered the ocean became less important and was replaced with exchanging ideas about how to open it without ruining what was inside. Calm, rational discussion is good :)

They should have thought outside the box and started to catch some fresh sushi