hedwards: Same goes for the US, most of the national forest has been logged. And the logging firms only had to provide roads to get to those areas in exchange for the rights to log. Roads which they would have to put in to get the trees out anyways... Which is to say they were given the timber for free and the citizens got the shaft.
Yep, giving away or throwing away resources has been the hallmark of our civilization.
I recall reading in my first year of high school that the U.S had almost cut down all it's forests while Canada still had a lot of it's forestry intact.
I'd be interested to read the figure now.
At least, the U.S has an excuse, sort of: practically the whole of their forested lands is civilization friendly and can be cut down for housing or farming.
In our case, a lot of the forests are in colder areas where population is a lot more scarce so we really have no excuse for cutting down our forests.
The U.S cutting down it's forest is stupid enough, but we lack the verbiage to properly describe the depravity of Canada cutting down it's forest.
hedwards: Paper is definitely superior for the purposes of archiving for a possibly nuclear holocause, but there's no reason why we need to print so many books for that purpose. And with funding things like the national archives, Library of Congress and such could do that even more efficiently with just stacks of printed pages, which could more efficiently be duplicated if need be.
Only because of a lack of electricity and the fact that they make throwaway hardware.
Like you said though, you don't need millions of paper copies (like they manufacture now for mass consumption), just a few centralized archives.
Theta_Sigma: I realize the politics of business are not a pretty matter, and by the reference to "my province" I take it you're a BC resident. I also suggested recycling the paper from fliers, news papers and the like to cut down upon logging companies.
Actually, Quebec.
B.C is more renowned for construction wood, since that province has marvelous huge age old trees that they can cut down to make chairs.
Comparatively, the trees in northern Quebec are not really good for construction, but they do the job for the paper industry.
Theta_Sigma: I said it's unlikely as well, but the fact it remains a possibility is enough of a reason to not remove printed books from circulation/being made. An example of why I make a statement is, I am a HUGE classic Doctor Who fan, and many early episodes were lost due to wiping of tapes. Now that is intentional, but it's the fact recorded mediums are easily lost or destroyed and the original product is gone for good. NEVER trust recording mediums as the only source of storage for any important information.
Let's put things in perspective, they destroyed the Doctor Who tapes because they were the only ones who had a copy and they probably kept it under lock and key (and in their limitless avidity, probably decided that it would be preferable to destroy the original copy rather than give it away).
This had very little to do with the medium used.
Theta_Sigma: Yes, but by converting everything over to all digital you take away many jobs from book store owners, to people working in printing plants, to others who depend on printed books for a living. Saying "eliminate" them is all well and good but you in the long run also take away many people's livelihood. Heck, you could also seriously effect something like the convention scene for books, comics, etc.... As well meaning as that is, the ends don't always justify the means.
This is part of what is incredibly, incredulously stupid about our society.
We have more than enough to give everyone the basic necessities of life several times over, yet we keep making incredulously stupid decisions in order to protect people's livelihood.
Why don't we have minimum guaranteed income already?
But fine, let's look at what we have rather than what we don't have (but could have if we weren't morons).
I'm a programmer. If tomorrow they invented the ultimate software that created perfect code on demand, I'd say "great, my job has been made redundant and is no longer needed, time to change fields" and I would just brush up my maths and do that instead (since I already have a math degree).
But let's assume for a second that I didn't have a math degree.
Then, I'd use our record low education rates, our free healthcare and if necessary, even wealthfare (though I'd much rather find a part time job, they are plentiful if you don't mind earning minimum wage) while I get myself an education in another subject matter to get into another line of work.
Theta_Sigma: I realize you said baby steps, but no matter how many baby steps you take you could have a lot of unexpected consequences as well. I don't think E-readers are the future so much as a viable alternative and part of the future of the written word. I, personally, have the opinion that both print AND digital mediums should be available to those in terms of novels and other reading materials that will not be immediately disposed of, and magazines, newspapers, fliers, etc...strictly digital or 100% recycled only.
e-readers are the viable future, because if all the intellectuals around the world (including in the emerging nations of which, China and India have several times over our population) decided tomorrow they wanted a library the size of mine, they would cut down what's left of our forests for it.
I have several hundred books and my collection will just keep growing as I acquire new reading material.
Theta_Sigma: Hmm, let's look at it this way, all the plastics in most electronics require oil to produce, now the refining process can pollute air, water, and other resources. Of that most electronics fail (as opposed to hundreds of year old books in readable condition), of those that fail many end up in landfills as opposed to being repaired. And can arguably be worse on the environment.
Look this debate is really just coming down to splitting hairs, it's really going nowhere and will likely result in degenerating into an argument. So let's just agree to disagree and move on...sound fair?
They make our electronics to be throwaway, because they expect us to buy the next version that comes out in a few years' time.
They could make it to last much longer.
This is a process that we can improve if pressed.
Paper, in comparison, is a dead end: worthwhile for archiving, terrible for mass consumption.
The only way paper would work would be if people stopped owning books and borrowed them at the library instead (you are welcome to advocate such an alternative, but I don't think it's what you had in mind).
Theta_Sigma: They are a valuable asset in terms of convenience but I seriously doubt will ever be a replacement for real books.
Digital books are real books: they are just real books stored in a medium you are less used to.
