Having spend years reading newspaper(s) every morning for leads - like property purchases, planned construction, homes for sale ads in the classifieds, etc. - as a real estate broker I was pleasantly surprised when i got out of the business to find that reading the newspaper was an expensive, time-wasting, unnecessary, not-too productive habit. When news came online, nearly in real time, with enough details to satisfy any lingering curiosity, I stopped buying and reading them.

Having decided that watching TV - from the slanted, headline and brief sound-byte oriented talking-head news to the nearly unlimited and possibly entertaining shows that weren't scientifically truthful to hoards of stretched out, padded, unresolving, and questionable documentaries - was a waste of my time, was semi-addictive (you always want to channel surf to see what else is on during commercials or boring parts), was a distracting background noise that annoyed me, and was also forcing opinions and things I "should" be concerned about onto my already overloaded brain that was trying to think, I got rid of all my TVs. Besides, I've found most of the "news" is really only supposition and what-if and press releases and opinions or expert analyses anyway.

Having found that most magazines can be found online free and faster - and that usually the headlines were enough to get the gist of the story - i stopped reading things that were published months after the fact. Most magazines can be replaced, and even the glossy photography printed at home, by Google and web sites that focus on certain subjects.

The point is now that I don't have a lot of distractions clamoring for my visual and auditory attention I can concentrate on things that i want to do. Information overload is a real malady, getting worse all the time. I don't miss the old ways at all. And I have also discovered the key to filtering down all those inputs:

News that affects me will find me.

I have friends that tell me things, headlines alert me to news that might interest me, websites are constantly updated nearly real time enough to keep me on top of things, and if I happen to miss anything, somebody who thinks I owe them time or money or resources will contact me.

Good grief, just crash a $500 drone into a $500 drone.
 
But the Pentagon would rather spend 50 times that - $25,000 - to create a committee that spends $250,000 coming up with $2,500,000 ideas that take $25,000,000 in R&D dollars to demonstrate how cost in-effective a $500 drone is.
 
After all, when the drones are flying over us they don't want to give the local RC club any ideas...

You might want to reconsider and do a little research. I read your post and curiosity is prompting me to delve into the organ donor facts a little deeper.
 
My philosophy is simple: I don't need this body when I die, "so dispose of it as you will" (as the Klingons would say).
 
Research, science exhibit, transplant materials, part'n'pieces here'n'there - if I can be put to good use for even 1 person when I'm gone, that's just carrying on what I try to do now.
 
I had always thought that some body parts might not be cancer- or whatever-prone, or at the least wouldn't carry any rogue properties with them. Even so, don't they do pretty comprehensive compatibility studies before they use the parts? And what they can't do now, they be able to do by the time I die, so I'll sign the card in anticipation of knowing they're inventing even better science as I write.
 
Even if body parts are found to be faulty or incompatible after they're used, the recipients still would get some living-longer or living-better use out of them. There's even the possibility of another transplant, too.

I'll be fast asleep - ignoring the pop! pop! of Texas' fireworks, loud obnoxious drunken revelry, 2008's "leap second", and certainly not fretting over any guilt-inspired New Year's resolutions I never should have made.