undefined | Better HN

0 pointslhnn14y ago0 comments

Romanticism is just that: a love for something because of what you believe it to be about: every nuance that makes an experience or thing what it is. Thus, romanticism is quite opinionated. To call it 'stupid' is a little harsh, but I won't rip you up about it like I wanted to (as someone who likes books).

To say books are an environmental detriment is incorrect; wood (paper) is one of the most renewable of resources, and when harvested responsibly (as is done in the US on the whole), it actually creates a net of more trees planted than would otherwise exist in our modern society.

Arguably, the plastics and battery chemicals of ebook readers is more damaging to our planet. Not that I think it's a particular concern.

To your last three paragraphs, I agree.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

rapind14y ago· 2 in thread

It's definitely an environmental detriment and I think you're overstating how responsibly it's being done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper

In the grand scheme of things though, you're definitely better off trading in the SUV than worrying about the environmental footprint of your personal library.

_delirium14y ago

I agree paper is a significant problem, but books are a really small portion of it, because they tend to be fairly durable goods. The vast majority of paper waste is in disposable things like newspapers, magazines, toilet paper, paper towels, advertisement circulars, etc.

Every week I probably throw out* a half-kilo of ads stuffed into my mailbox, one circular every week from every major grocery and department-store chain in the area. It would only take a few months to accumulate as much paper in grocery-store ads as all the books I've bought in my life.

* Well, I recycle it, but afaik the recyclability of glossy/coated paper is fairly poor/inefficient.

rapind14y ago

Something you might be interested is what happens with our recycling once it hits the curb. I was completely blown away when I heard about this (Toronto specific article, but I imagine you have a similar process south of the border).

http://www.thestar.com/article/584523

I agree though, my common sense tells me that books are probably not a real contributor, but I couldn't say for sure without researching it a bit (I've been surprised before).

makmanalp14y ago· 1 in thread

On romanticism: I guess I was being too harsh. My point was that it doesn't really make any practical or economic sense for me to romanticize about books, but I can't help it anyway. (Which now seems self evident when you point out the definition of romanticism like that.)

Interesting about the environmental aspect. What about all the waste though? I guess it gets recycled eventually.

wheels14y ago

I buy about 20-30 books per year and probably 100 rolls of toilet paper. If you haven't stopped using toilet paper, I wouldn't worry about your library. Not buying books for environmental reasons is for the overwhelming majority of lifestyles optimizing in the wrong place.

It's rare for a person to read more than a couple thousand books in a lifetime. That's under 2 cubic meters of space total. That's massively dwarfed by the amount of waste that we generate in a lifetime. I'd need about 3 years worth of books to fill up a trash bag.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse