/lit/ - Literature

but paperbacks are the best
fuck hardcovers, they're clunky and annoying to read and a hassle to carry around with you
all you need is thin cheap paper flimsily bound together with words all over it

>still wasting paper

>>5126937
well, preferably not TOO flimsy. i've had parts of some bigger paperbacks sort of detach from the binding and it gets annoying.

i also like it when the paper is very smooth. it soothes my autism.

>>5126944
as i read a book, i like to tear out each page as i read it and throw it in the bin (not recycling)
if i want to reread it, i just buy another copy and repeat

>>5126932
I don't think thats a problem since here in Finland 90% of other language books are paperbacks except for those usual classics (P&P, Odyssey etc).

its also the reason why I read most books that over 500 pages in Finnish, including Ulysses

>>5126949
you belong in prison you psychopath

>>5126932
How, I buy 90% of my books second-hand and I save so much money.

>>5126944
>wasting paper, a wholly sustainable resource
>wasting extremely limited rare earth metals in the manufacturing of an e-ink screen and contributing to greenhouse emissions whenever you charge your device

>>5126973
>read 10000 books with 1 reader
>read 1 book with 1 book
You fail at logic.

>>5126979
you can literally read an infinite amount of paper books, and zero books on a kindle, and the kindle is still more wasteful

>>5126983
>literally
>infinite
Are you a retarded person? Paper being renewable doesn't mean it doesn't use resources to manufacture and transport. It's not fucking magic.

>>5126983
No it's not you dumbass. It's reusable and dynamic. Books aren't. They're fucking static.

Consider this:
- there's a million books sold wortwhile that have the same exact content
- this same content could be put in a single downloadable file
- save 1 million worth of books just by encoind the data digitally

You're a fucking idiot.

>>5126983
No it's not you dumbass. It's reusable and dynamic. Books aren't. They're fucking static.

Consider this:
- there's a million books sold worldwide that have the same exact content
- this same content could be put in a single downloadable file
- save 1 million books worth of forests just by encoind the data digitally

You're a fucking idiot.

>>5126998
>Deletes first attempt at post
>still misses "encoind"

no u

>>5127001
Well, fuck it. At least I tried

>>5126998
The point is that that the forests are renewable, while Kindles aren't-

>>5126993
literally
>in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literally

>>5126998
>a million books
you still need one ereader per reader, or a million ereaders vs. a million paper books

think about this for a moment

>>5126998
Your logic doesn't hold, since every single person who wanted to read it would need to use an electronic device.

>>5127007
Million ereaders also means that readers don't have only ONE book to read, they have MILLIONS.

Consider that for just a damn second.

>>5127010
Read this >>5127011

Jesus it's like you people think with your feet instead of your brain.

>>5127011
>reading a million books

the median number of books a person reads each year is 6

http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2012/12/27/e-book-reading-jumps-print-book-reading-declines/

if the ereader lasts them 60 years, and it won't, that means 360 books

the amount of waste to make and use ereader compared to a book is significant

i would guesstimate it would take several thousand books read on an ereader to make it less wasteful than reading the equivalent on paper

>>5127020
Ok let's reverse the argument for just a second here.

Say all the books in the world disappeared and all we had were Kindles. Are we better off or worse off, ecologically speaking, considering the average amount of information a single human being takes in from books and book-like sources?

>>5127014
In your eagerness to prove that e-readers have the potential to be environment-friendly if there are millions of books worth of paper saved for very one of them, you are forgetting that the average person reads less than ten books per year.

Now stop posting.

>>5127024
worse

>>5127024
Goddamn, you're stubborn. Just shut up already.

>>5126932
>tfw you pirate e-books and spend your money on scotch instead

>>5127026
That's only because I'm a fucking logician. And I know when something doesn't make sense. What you're proposing makes zero sense.

Just think about the amount of information available on the internet. How many freaking books would it take to get all that in a library?

It's one thing when you have to duplicate information using a primitive physical medium. But it's something altogether different when you can copy that information into memory, and have anyone access it at any time.

It's not only more ecologically friendly, it's also much more optimized for use and it increases the information bandwidth by an insane amount.

Books are a thing of the past. They will be useful if the entire world runs out of power. Until then, fuck books.

>>5127028
Then you didn't think it through well.

>>5127030
Why? Am I disturbing your peace?

>>5127037
you must not be a very good logician

>>5127043
Better than you it would seem.

>>5127037
dude i don't think you understand how much more wasteful making an ereader is compared to making a book

here's an imperfect comparison:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/magazine/recycling-is-garbage.html?pagewanted=all

>Are reusable cups and plates better than disposables? A ceramic mug may seem a more virtuous choice than a cup made of polystyrene, the foam banned by ecologically conscious local governments. But it takes much more energy to manufacture the mug, and then each washing consumes more energy (not to mention water). According to calculations by Martin Hocking, a chemist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, you would have to use the mug 1,000 times before its energy-consumption-per-use is equal to the cup. (If the mug breaks after your 900th coffee, you would have been better off using 900 polystyrene cups.)

a book is essentially paper and glue

an ereader is an electronic device that is made via a very complex multi-stage process that uses rare earth materials, and on top of this it requires a constant input of energy to use throughout its lifetime

>>5127045
but you're axioms

>>5127045
no, not really. but i am too contemptuous of you to actually explain why you're incorrect. feel free to persist in your arrogant delusions, though

>>5127046
What about all the extra overhead that goes into making, publishing and marketing and selling the book? Ever thought of that?

Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Think of the biggest library you've ever seen. I can put that whole library on something that's fits easily onto my nail. And all you need is a computer of some sorts to display it. Just judging from the amount of matter, it's very very easy to see that having huge libraries with books does more damage to the planet. When you release a book on the internet, do you know how many trees get chopped down? Right, zero. No trees at all. When you release it through a publisher, do you know how many? No, you fucking don't.

The reader is less environmentally friendly to make, yes, but it's more environmentally friendly by extension.

But whatever. I'm delusional, remember.

>>5127062
Yes you are. Good night, anon.

What is this obsession people have with books? They put them in their houses like they're trophies. What do you need it for after you read it?

>tfw can afford hardbacks
>tfw can afford Folio Society and other nice editions
>tfw I use a Paperwhite and don't pay for books because I like to spend my money on experiences and not things

People are much more interested in you when you have experiences to draw on rather than having to rely on physical possessions to give you a sense of self-worth.

>>5127301
To read it again. And for references.

>>5127301
Go to bed Jerry

>>5127319
>Reading isn't an experience.
>Caring how much people are interested in you.
I don't think this is the board for you, newfriend.

>>5127062
do you know how much fossil fuel it takes to power the devices storing and displaying those books, do you know how many petrochemicals it takes to make the plastics in those devices. Trees are a renewable resource, you can grow more of them, and growing trees is good for the environment.

Google for instance uses 50% of the Hoover Dam's power output for a year.

>>5127334
I never said it wasn't an experience, I said I prefer not to spend my money on material goods where possible.

Reading is my main pasttime but I don't like having things cluttering my house. I have very few CDs or DVDs/Blu Ray. I just like going outdoors and going for walks through the woods, or around lakes or travelling to different parts of the world/country. I'm not doing for other people.

>>5127376
That's nice, except it contradicts what you said before.

>tfw you can only find the book in hardcover
>ftw buy it and turn it into a pb

>>5127319
Joke's on you, experiences are not worth the money either.

>>5127630
why

ITT: Mass autism

>>5126949
i enjoyed this

cool thread I've never seen an ereader vs book thread that argued over sustainability; and to take that one step further, the ereaders-being-more-wasteful argument is surprisingly strong despite how obviously counterintuitive it is

thanks people

>>5127346
I don't see how bad an ereader could be for power usage after it is made. I only charge my kobo like once every few weeks for a couple hours

>>5126946
>it soothes my autism
Nu-uh, my autism is bigger than yours. I need it to have a texture because smooth paper freaks out my sense of touch. It's fucked up.

the way most hardcovers look gives me a weird comical vibe, I wonder if it is just me.

Hardcover a shit. Try lying down and reading a hardcover, it blows

>>5127904
>tfw you're used to an e-reader now and all paper books are clumsy shitheaps now.

>>5127917
>>5126944
hate the fonts

>>5127924
at least you get to change fonts
if you get a book with a shitty font then you're fucked

>>5127917
Yea, I just use my kobo too, but a large hardcover just sucks

With books you're always fucked.

>not being able to read handsfree in fetal position

>>5127951
My fav, I just prop my kobo up with its case sometimes, but then I start feeling tired and almost fall asleep

>>5127951
this is why i'm buying Google glass solely as an ereader

>>5127970
>I just prop my kobo up with its case
mindfuck moment... value of a case has just hit me. i always thought getting a case for my kindle would be dumb

>>5127974
I read that as "i'm buying George glasses" at first. I wondered where they sell George glasses.

>>5127979
I prop my e-reader up against a little stack of hardcovers or a box or something. Works well.

>>5127986
the optician? it doesn't look like an obscure model.

>>5127995
that looks so awesome and useful but it's also aggressively nerdy and would be way too jarring to explain if I bring a girl to my room

>>5127346
>Trees are a renewable resource
Oh my god /lit/.

>>5126944
>still at chapter 1
poseur

>>5128032
ya srsly

it's very clearly not even worth engaging the argument. too stupid

>>5128028
>useful
I had the thought of using something like that for books, never for e-readers.
>but what will muh girls think!
literally fuck them you puss

>>5128048
well it's obv useful for ereaders in the same way it'd be useful for books

>literally fuck them you puss
duh but why would I ever want to have to address the giant metal jointed arm hanging over my bed

>>5128067
make a sad face and tell them it's a heirloom

I want e-book marketers to leave.
I'm convinced that REI is just the CEO of amazon.

BOTTOM LINE: When the Chinese invade and use weaponized electromagnetic pulses to knock out our power grid in anticipation of a ground assault, your puny e-readers will be worthless. Meanwhile I'll be holed up in a cabin with 20 guns and the complete Everyman's Library sheathed in UV-protective brodart.

Books:1
E-readers:0

>>5128184
I choose to believe this.

>>5128184
>put your kindle in a faraday cage
>???
>profit

>>5126973
>Sustainable resource
Isn't paper making a very polluting industry? You need a lot of chemicals to make white paper I think. I've seen paper made with elephant shit, but I don't think I'll see the day when they make books out of shit paper..

I treat reading the same way I treat movies and music: download the shit I passively want to experience and buy physicals of what I want to keep forever.

I like the benefits of both digital and physical and I don't see a reason to not utilize both. I guess you could argue that it's "cooler" to have all your shit on a hard drive, but I like to take ownership a step further because it's good to know you have all forms of your favorite books/movies/music.

>>5128202
Same here, I buy the books I really enjoyed reading. I read most of them for the first time on my kindle.

>>5128176
Considering all his pedophile posts that would be even more crazy.

>>5128184
>not learning chinese and becoming a comfy traitor

>>5126944
>battery runs out
>can't read anymore

wow technology

>>5128375
From all of the counterarguments, this one is probably the best.

>>5128375
>>5128400
Yes, if you spend weeks at a time away from power sources. Which hardly anyone ever does.

>>5128400
It's no argument at all; Kindle battery life is tremendous, even under daily use for long periods of time. There are also plenty of opportunities to charge, like sleep-time, in the car and at work.

There simply isn't a useful argument against e-book readers, besides "muh medium".

>>5127037
You're acting as if data isn't physical.
Where do you think the Internet is stored?

>>5127062
When you release a book on the Internet it needs o be on a HDD that's connected to the Internet which requires wire and constant access to energy.
I bet you're one of those retards who believes in "the cloud" marketing bullshit.

>>5128491
It takes far less physical space. Likewise, it's actually easier to produce.

>>5128545
>harddrives are easier to produce than paper and ink

>>5128549
>a factory press will produce millions of tiny MOSFET transistor on each press
Go away, hippy.

>>5128574
The reply chain was talking about the ecological footprint of books, more focused on how easy it is to get the materials for production and what those materials are.

>>5128549
Cost of 1TB hard drive: $70
Cost of average 300-page book: $100

Number of books on 1TB: 337,920 copies of War and Peace (1225 pages)

Do the fucking math.

>300 page book: $100

lmao

>>5128588
>Cost of average 300-page book: $100

wat

>>5128594
New 300-page books are easily $100.

>>5128602

>>5128609
Maybe you're buying cooking recipes? I don't know.

>>5128602

My eyebrows became so furrowed reading this post they started to twitch uncontrollably

>>5128618
I nearly died laughing reading this post.

>>5128613
Or maybe you're spouting billy bullshit. A new book will range from £8-£14 for any standard sized book. Some enormous folio sized book with 800 pages might cost you up to £30 at most. I know this is the UK but surely you don't live in such a shithole that books are $100

>>5128626
That seems reasonable. Maybe it's because I'm buying technical books. What am I doing in this conversation?

>>5128627
>comparing cutting-edge textbooks with XIX c. literature
>implying you don't have to pay for the pdfs anyways
>implying you can't buy older editions of the same novel for pennies on the dollar

are you retarded?

>>5128646
I'm just saying how much the average book probably costs.

It doesn't matter if it costs $0.01, hard drives are still cheaper by comparison of how much data each holds.

>>5128646
Honestly, I prefer to hold a book in my hands -- whether paperback or hardcover -- but because I often borrowed them, I was terrified if a corner got bent or anything.

You can find most PDF's online for free anyway, in various translations which can be helpful. For example where I live, there's only one second hand bookstore that stacked Dostoevsky and all the books are translated by the same person.

>>5128658
but you still have to pay for that data, and for the rest of the computer and the device that will read the data, and for the energy the data processing and display will consume, etc.

In my opinion there some books that are worth having as printed books, books I know I'll re-read many many times

>>5128674
But unlike with books, you pay once and use many times (usually for years).

Now take the number of people who read stuff daily. Can you imagine this number? Can you tell me this wouldn't have a positive impact on the environment?

>>5128683
You can read books many times as well. Also you can read 500 year old books but you'd struggle to access 30 year old etexts.

>>5128698
I feel like a dumbass by just being in this conversation.

>>5128698
>you'd struggle to access 30 year old etexts

What the hell are you talking about?

>>5128705
>>5128726
Assuming that it's being used, good luck having an HDD last for 30 years.

>>5128765
Ok, you have a point there. I won't argue with that.

I believe technology still alows for more environmentally friendly data sharing.

It's true hower that technology isn't perfect yet. And the biggest problem with technology is that things get discarded, anyway. If we could recycle old technology to produce new technology, then we would have something awesome going on.

>>5128199
I work in the paper industry. It is not necessarily a polluting industry, at least not any more than any other. The plant I work at has zero direct waste, in fact. The only pollution comes from the energy we consume. Other than that, the only thing we expel into the environment is steam.

>>5128780

Oh please! You think rare earths for circuit boards is enviro, or the energy used to power our church of the new gadget is enviro? Pssssshhhh.

Pulp, while certainly not angelic from an enviro POV, is probably not (much) worse than the electrified datasphere

>>5128765
>Assuming that it's being used, good luck having an HDD last for 30 years.
HELLO, ARE YOU STUPID or OLD? cloud storage you fucking tard

>>5128868
ayy lmao

>>5128868
I am reading this in the voice of a retarded 15 year old hipster girl. Take that as you will.