The Independent takes the first step into the digital age: a new beginning!

Original post by lustawny

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/independent-launches-digital-chapter-an-era-ends-a-new-one-dawns-a6872741.html

I find this news absolutely exciting/enthralling, and I welcome any step in the direction towards a truly 'paperless' society, where the affairs of humans are carried out entirely through digital means. Why should nature have to suffer unnecessarily, when we have the science and the technology, as well as the human capacity for intelligence/inventive and creative thought, to invent entirely new ways of dealing with this problem?

Those of you on here who follow me on Twitter (@lustawny), will be aware that I've tweeted about this topic before. I'm just so excited about it! I will definitely be venturing out on March 20th and buying the final paper copy of The Independent - how about the rest of you?

Thoughts? :smile:

All news should go paperless. Why waste so much paper on news when we have the internet that provides instant access to everything? Even if there are some people reading off paper they won't be reading all of it. As an ex newspaper distributor, I can honestly tell you that the amount of paper wasted on newspapers a day is just dreadful.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

Original post by lustawny

I find this news absolutely exciting/enthralling, and I welcome any step in the direction towards a truly 'paperless' society, where the affairs of humans are carried out entirely through digital means. Why should nature have to suffer unnecessarily, when we have the science and the technology, as well as the human capacity for intelligence/inventive and creative thought, to invent entirely new ways of dealing with this problem?

I'm much less thrilled, and there's something quite cheap and tacky about the prospect of an all paperless society. I love my book collection, it really is my most treasured possession/s. There's nothing nicer than a good quality hardback book. In fact, booksellers have noticed an uptick in sales while sales of e-readers are flat or declining.

I also don't know what you mean about "Why should nature suffer". Trees don't suffer when we cut them down, and it's possible to create tree plantations so you are not harvesting precious old growth forests in South America and so on. Certainly one can make an argument that we should be more discriminating in our selection of wood sources for paper production, but I do not accept that it is particularly attractive prospect to bring the existence of physical books to an end. In fact, it sounds quite sinister in some ways

Reply 4

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Gnomes&Knights

All news should go paperless. Why waste so much paper on news when we have the internet that provides instant access to everything? Even if there are some people reading off paper they won't be reading all of it. As an ex newspaper distributor, I can honestly tell you that the amount of paper wasted on newspapers a day is just dreadful.

I agree, I just wish the whole micropayments thing to browse one copy of a paper/mag online, or one article, was somewhat easier. They all want long tedious forms completing, the permanent right to bombard you with spam for the rest of your life, etc, etc.

Reply 5

OP

Original post by GoldenFang

I'm much less thrilled, and there's something quite cheap and tacky about the prospect of an all paperless society. I love my book collection, it really is my most treasured possession/s. There's nothing nicer than a good quality hardback book. In fact, booksellers have noticed an uptick in sales while sales of e-readers are flat or declining.

I also don't know what you mean about "Why should nature suffer". Trees don't suffer when we cut them down, and it's possible to create tree plantations so you are not harvesting precious old growth forests in South America and so on. Certainly one can make an argument that we should be more discriminating in our selection of wood sources for paper production, but I do not accept that it is particularly attractive prospect to bring the existence of physical books to an end. In fact, it sounds quite sinister in some ways

What about the very simple fact that it's easy for paper documents to be mislaid, destroyed, counterfeited etc.?

Reply 6

Original post by Gnomes&Knights

All news should go paperless. Why waste so much paper on news when we have the internet that provides instant access to everything?

Reading a newspaper and surfing a website is a different experience, it's a different medium. Not only is there a gratifying quality to reading a good newspaper like the FT, getting the ink on your fingers, maybe spreading it out on the table on a Sunday at breakfast, but there's also a sense that reading a physical newspaper is both more focused and more relaxed.

You peruse through articles, seeing something you like, maybe being drawn into an article by more than just the headline. Also, you tend to read more broadly when reading a physical newspaper, whereas with a website you gravitate mainly towards your own interests. Surfing the web you're also more likely to end up with 15 tabs open, surfing other websites rather than the newspaper website. And so I think it is fair to say that reading a newspaper from end to end, you are consuming the news in a way that is deep as well as wide, whereas with internet consumption it may be more like skimming through it and consuming it in a more superficial fashion

Reply 7

Original post by lustawny

What about the very simple fact that it's easy for paper documents to be mislaid, destroyed, counterfeited etc.?

Any paper document will already have an electronic copy because it will need to have had one in order to be printed out. Most workplaces work mostly with electronic documents anyway, but it's useful to have the paper option. If you go to a meeting and you're just heading out the door to walk to the meeting room, and there's an additional document you want to bring, you can just print half a dozen copies and hand it out rather than faffing around with sending it to each person, hoping everyone has brought a tablet device, etc etc

But confining myself to books, I can't think of any books I've ever lost other than when I've lent it to someone, and I don't loan my expensive books to other people. Also, there are electronic documents from the 1980s that we are now trying to recover but can't because the software no longer exists and the format isn't used anymore, whereas a book is permanent.

I enjoy the physical experience of reading a book, and the books themselves are valuable objects. Also, if I ever fall on hard times I can sell some of my books to get money, whereas you can't really sell e-books. These days there often isn't that much of a difference between the cost of an e-book and a physical copy, so usually I buy the physical copy. Also, my books form part of the decoration of my flat, and also are something of a window into my soul. If I bring a guy home, he'll check out what books I have and we usually touch on something we've both read (before we touch on something else, hehe). Tbh I would probably be slightly less inclined towards someone if I found out they didn't own any physical books or have a bookshelf

Reply 8

the bear

Original post by GoldenFang

I'm much less thrilled, and there's something quite cheap and tacky about the prospect of an all paperless society. I love my book collection, it really is my most treasured possession/s. There's nothing nicer than a good quality hardback book. In fact, booksellers have noticed an uptick in sales while sales of e-readers are flat or declining.

I also don't know what you mean about "Why should nature suffer". Trees don't suffer when we cut them down, and it's possible to create tree plantations so you are not harvesting precious old growth forests in South America and so on. Certainly one can make an argument that we should be more discriminating in our selection of wood sources for paper production, but I do not accept that it is particularly attractive prospect to bring the existence of physical books to an end. In fact, it sounds quite sinister in some ways

it should also be mentioned that the rare earths required to make electronic gadgets such as phones & readers are produced in appalling conditions.

Reply 9

Original post by the bear

it should also be mentioned that the rare earths required to make electronic gadgets such as phones & readers are produced in appalling conditions.

Absolutely. And there are very good practical reasons I mentioned above for why physical books are better (they can be valuable and you can sell them if you fall on hard times unlike e-books, there are electronic formats from the 1980s historians are trying to access but can't because the software no longer exists whereas books are permanent, that your collection is in itself an adornment to your home and an excellent way to discover more about a person through seeing their bookshelf etc etc).

Reply 10

the bear

if you are taken short on a car journey it is far better to have a newspaper to hand than an electronic gadget

:yep:

Reply 11

Asolare

Wait will the I also be out of circulation? :frown:

Reply 12

OP

Original post by GoldenFang

Any paper document will already have an electronic copy because it will need to have had one in order to be printed out. Most workplaces work mostly with electronic documents anyway, but it's useful to have the paper option. If you go to a meeting and you're just heading out the door to walk to the meeting room, and there's an additional document you want to bring, you can just print half a dozen copies and hand it out rather than faffing around with sending it to each person, hoping everyone has brought a tablet device, etc etc

Exactly, so if there's already an electronic version, then what's the point in actively choosing to use paper documents? You say that having a system in place where documents are entirely electronic and where documents are sent electronically, would involve a lot of "faffing about" (can't see how this would be the case, but okay), but, conversely, what about if someone doesn't like the idea of having to be tied down with loads of paper documents in their possession?

What if, for arguments sake, you print out a load of paper documents at home for a meeting that you've got to be in (which you're perhaps running late for), and you end up having your laptop bag stolen with all the documents inside? By your logic, what are you supposed to do, then, if having paper documents is the only way to function at a work meeting? Having a paperless society where everything is digital, just makes everything that much more convenient and easier to function, in my view.

Reply 13

Original post by lustawny

X

Can I ask a question... have you ever had a job in an office?

but, conversely, what about if someone doesn't like the idea of having to be tied down with loads of paper documents in their possession?

How is it being tied down simply to be handed a single piece of paper in a meeting?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 14

OP

Original post by GoldenFang

Can I ask a question... have you ever had a job in an office?

How is it being tied down simply to be handed a single piece of paper in a meeting?

Well, conversely, how is it any less convenient to have everything done electronically? Your argument really holds no weight at all. You just want paper to remain because you enjoy having it, and not because it's a more pragmatic way of doing things.

Reply 15

Original post by lustawny

Well, conversely, how is it any less convenient to have everything done electronically?

I'm pointing out it's sometimes less convenient to go paperless. As I said, if you're going to a meeting and at the last minute there's a new document you need to bring, then you're taking a gamble hoping that everyone will bring their tablets, that you emailed it to everyone, that the WiFi is working.

Or.. you can just print off 5 or 6 pages and bring it to the meeting

You just want paper to remain because you enjoy having it, and not because it's a more pragmatic way of doing things.

In the case of the office environment, I'm saying sometimes it's better to use electronic documents, sometimes it's better to use paper. You simply adjust your use according to the situation.

With your favoured way of doing things, there would be meetings you would go to where your insistence on never, ever using any paper would mean that there would be people who would not have access to the document because they didn't bring a tablet or the WiFi was down. With mine, you simply use the most efficient and sensible method of information dissemination in each situation.

You seem quite worked up about this, and i'm getting the sense that you haven't really worked in an office environment otherwise you wouldn't be holding to this hardcore, environmentalist and/or superficial technophile nonsense when experience would tell you that you simply do what is most convenient in each situation.

Reply 16

OP

Just to clarify to the thread, I don't think everything should go paperless (books, for example) because some things are far more practical in their paper formats. I suppose I just want there to be a more pragmatic outlook when it comes to paper vs. digital. It seems to me that there's a genuine, pragmatic benefit to be had from switching to digital in certain areas of our society (i.e. our impact on the environment, security/storage of documents), and we would be mad to not at least consider pursuing it further.

Reply 17

the bear