[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Why the Demise of Print Media May Be Bad for Humanity here

[CanRedNeck]

I agree with you. I have files that I created less than 20 years ago and I could not access anymore because the software that made it no longer exists. I hope people realize the impermanence of digital media. I wonder how libraries are handling this issue with all these new digital medias.

[srobertson398]

Not everyone has a computer. I live where very few have or even use one.

[MichaelCreamerJr]

Unless and until all digital files are able to be made hack proof, our best bet is to hold onto hard copies. I think it is fine to make pretty much anything 'digital and downloadable", but as it is now, digital files are too susceptible to hacking and/or deleting.

[johnpombrio]

The Library of Alexandria containing about 40,000 scrolls was burned during fighting over the city. That entire library's contents would have fit on a USB Thumb drive costing around $15 and would be easily copied. At for redacting material, the bible has gone though huge changes over the centuries due to the whims of the popes. As for writings being unreadable, that is not a matter of technological obsolescence as it is a matter of lack of willingness to update the material to new forms of storage or to write new software to read the old material.
The digital revolution is just that, a revolution. The easy dissemination of information and the scanning or irreplaceable books is a wonder, not a curse. Paper is only a means to store information and a poor one at that. If you really want to go permanent, lets go back to stone tablets...

[ML2376]

Actually, I'm not really sure that digital media is that ecologically superior either. Yes, you're not cutting down trees to make paper. Instead you're using petroleum to make the materials for the e-reader. You're also using petroleum or natural gas to create the electricity necessary to power the e-readers. And that doesn't even take into account the materials and power necessary for the servers that store all of this digital media.

Besides all that, someone who buys a physical book will keep it for years or even decades. People who buy e-readers, on the other hand, will be in the constant upgrade mode common to all computer-type gear. Within the next 5- 10 years landfills all over the country will be filled with discarded Kindles, Nooks and iPads.

[42n81]

ML2376, on 19 March 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Actually, I'm not really sure that digital media is that ecologically superior either. Yes, you're not cutting down trees to make paper. Instead you're using petroleum to make the materials for the e-reader. You're also using petroleum or natural gas to create the electricity necessary to power the e-readers. And that doesn't even take into account the materials and power necessary for the servers that store all of this digital media.

Besides all that, someone who buys a physical book will keep it for years or even decades. People who buy e-readers, on the other hand, will be in the constant upgrade mode common to all computer-type gear. Within the next 5- 10 years landfills all over the country will be filled with discarded Kindles, Nooks and iPads.

As of this writing, the iPad uses aluminum and glass for its major components and is entirely recyclable.

[DylanKinnett]

Wikipedia pages have a changelog, so it is easier to watch how that information has changed over time, easier than it would be with a printed encyclopedia. It could be easier, though. Many people don't know about the "view history" feature.

[Fatesrider]

Many people here are equating unequal forms of media. Digital is virtual and infinitely copyable. Paper is actual and is unique to that item.

A single e-reader can hold thousands of books. Those thousands of virtual books each represent an infinite number of copies of itself on many other forms of data storage in multiple locations. The material used to store and display these books has other uses as well.

Thousands of paper books take up a lot of space and consume a lot of material. Each book represents only one copy of itself and when it's lost, that book is lost forever. The material used in each book can be recycled, but only a limited amount of time and can't be adapted for other purposes while that book is in existence.

Digital is obviously superior to paper - until the lights go out. That cuts off access to the digital. It doesn't erase it. Once the lights come back on, that stored material is still there and anything that takes out all that storage will, in all likelihood, take out the books as well.

All that said, there will always be a market for printed books. On-demand publishing is still a viable option (resulting in less waste and a more cost-effective operation) and will remain so as long as the nostalgia factor a lot of folks feel for books remains.

Print will never become extinct. But for ephemeral material like magazines, newspapers and the like, digital is probably going to take over as printing (and transportation/shipping) costs go up. As long as there is a computer, that content can be delivered without additional shipping/transportation charges (since virtually every media company has its own servers/ISP service already).

I would not be surprised to see e-readers in doctor's waiting rooms one of these days. It's less clutter, offers more variety, CAN BE CLEANED (how many bugs do we get by handling the reading material other sick people have been handling? Bet you never thought of that. Bet you won't be reading a magazine in a waiting room again, either. ) and provides a better overall environment.

[A41202813]

The Only Problem With 'WIKIPEDIAS' Is When Their Storing Cloud Servers Are Taken Down Forever, Because Some Control Freak Paid Politicians To Act On Them As 'Illegal'.

[FrancoisRagnet]

Very interesting discussion, which is central to my blog on the Future of Documents (including print, but not only): http://futureofdocum...logs.xerox.com/).

Your point about the "trust" in digital documents (Wikipedia is an evolution of document) is a new dimension that is very interesting.

This is a direct consequence of Web 2.0 and social media evolutions - everyone owns and can contribute, but at the end of the day noone holds responsibility for this content.

[GeekyGeezer]

Personally, I think we were much better off when everything was carved in stone. One big fire and everything gets wiped out. Just look what happened at the Great Library of Alexandria. If they stuck with stone, tragedy could have been avoided.

[LineOne]

I wish I could send this reply on a post card.

Your reference to the Library of Alexandria is a good example of the destructibility of ancient media but I’m afraid that it doesn’t help your argument particularly well. Most libraries or large collections of books are not lost to catastrophe. The Vatican alone has a trove of history, diaries, legal documents, and miscellany that has survived centuries. Of course, stone like any other material can be battered, buried and destroyed – we certainly can’t save it all. More importantly, however, I believe you miss Mr. Bradley’s main premise that a true, permanent, historical record is much more difficult to achieve with digital media.

Digital media in and of itself is dependent on cheap material and ever-evolving software. It is also, by its very nature not permanent. If I take pen to paper, my commitment to that medium is permanent; it becomes part of my historical permanent testimony. If found by my ancestors or historians, they would see what I had written on that particular date and time without alteration or second thoughts – only an act of God or circumstance would erase it.

If, however, I wrote a sentence using Microsoft Word and saved it to my thumb drive - then the record becomes far cloudier, the historical significance suspect, and its value questionable (that is of course, provided someone centuries from now can access a thumb drive and has a copy of Word). Digital media is far more susceptible to alteration and editing than what preceded it. Magnetic, laser and other forms of digital storage are not as dependable or as sturdy as analog, and the very nature of digital media demands that we discard the old and embrace the new; every few years or so, we essentially recreate the Rosetta Stone without the benefit of the ancient Greek .

I’m not a Luddite by any means, but I believe Mr. Bradley has a great point. We’ve reached an age where we can Photoshop not only our family photographs, but also our family history. We can revise at will and delete all previous evidence of our lives, thoughts, and actions by merely pressing the “save” or delete button. It’s all very accommodating and easy, but it’s hardly historical, accurate, or enduring.

[BobMutascio]

I think both should exist, though print can certainly be cut back a lot due to digital formats.

Personally, I like to read physical books. I do occasionally read digital books, but I like to walk while I read or sit in the back yard, something impossible on an electronic device.

But my main concern is with digital replacing physical books is the potential for catastrophic loss via unintentional (ie solar flares) or intentional (ie EMP or nuclear devices) means. If our society went totally digital, information could be wiped out in a matter of seconds.

[JTF243]

Fatesrider, on 19 March 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

I would not be surprised to see e-readers in doctor's waiting rooms one of these days. It's less clutter, offers more variety, CAN BE CLEANED (how many bugs do we get by handling the reading material other sick people have been handling? Bet you never thought of that. Bet you won't be reading a magazine in a waiting room again, either. ) and provides a better overall environment.

That's why I take my OWN reading material!

[SikFly]

GeekyGeezer, on 20 March 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Personally, I think we were much better off when everything was carved in stone. One big fire and everything gets wiped out. Just look what happened at the Great Library of Alexandria. If they stuck with stone, tragedy could have been avoided.

stone tablets break, crack and chip. Nothing escapes time. Both storage options serve their purposes, for that you use common sense. Have physical copies of things you need physical copies of and likewise to digital complete with backups of each on both mediums. However, for most of us, not too many things we have in storage is really THAT important, but more likely sentimental. Any type of entertainment, regardless of how you store it, is really not that important, not like say, financial records, tax stuff, your deed, car title..etc, things that at some point, you have to have...those are the ones where you store multiple copies in both forms, PLUS cloud storage and fire proof box storage.

[JimH443]

Digital media is double-plus good. ("1984" reference, for those that don't recognize it)
The revision of history is one of the issues raised in this book, and one that should always be a concern.

[CaitlanWilliams]

When I first heard about the absence of encyclopedias, my heart dropped to my stomach. I immediately wanted to buy the last set, but can't afford at $1500 investment on a set of encyclopedias. Our children will no longer know how to research further then Wikipedia, and knowledge will be lost in time. We already retain far less then we used to. I love digital media, I love VIDEO specifically, but files can become corrupt 50 years down the line, and not all knowledge is meant to be compacted to such a degree.

[CharlotteDennis]

It would be advisable that those who write might read the New York Times for an example of what good writing is in digital format or the antiquated ole paper format. I found the writing here dull. I don't know why. Maybe it's the bombastic feel of almost anything one reads on the internet. It seems that everything's written to impress some dullbrained CEO who seems to lack imagination or just doesn't like good writing. Give me good old New York Times prose any day. Best writing around I've seen and I've seen alot of written text.

[MarcelMallia]

It would be quite the contribution for citizens of a country like the United States to input things they feel they should into a database that can store data at a centralized location. Surely, this is flawed in more ways than one; though, I feel it can be a breath of fresh air.

Whether the information be current events, historical occurrences they question, comments about scientific theories, & etc. etc.

It could quite possibly reinvent the library.