I've always thought why is more important than why not. Example: "I'm going to hit myself in the dick with a hammer."

Your example has an obvious great answer to "why not?", though, so no harm done in asking that question first.

Actually, that's not so problematic unless there's an anvil involved, or the hammer is moving quickly.

I still don't think its a problem. I can swing the hammer if AnalogNoise cannot build up sufficient speed.

Well, why don't you MARRY safe science if you love it so much!! :)

While I agree the grandparent's comment doesn't add much to the conversation, and even has many obvious answers, why is a more interesting question. You are basically questioning if there is a need to change the status quo, or put in physics terms, why do you want to expend energy to move from the local stable point? What is the point with higher stability you want to reach, and what are the characteristics that make this point desirable and justify the energy expenditure?