PodcastsGallery iPhone Matters
search


In Defense of Paper

Posted August 17, 2007 6:00 AM by Paul Levinson
Categories: Concept 

First, let’s distinguish bills vs. paper bills: what’s irritating to aggravating about paper bills, I would say, is that they’re bills.  Paper’s not really the issue.  I don’t see too many people objecting to receiving some paper cash in hand.

But paper has long been held up as an early item to be replaced by the digital revolution.  I recall lots of talk and writing back in the 1980s about the “paperless office”.  Didn’t happen.

I’ll let Sierra Waters, heroine of my novel The Plot to Save Socrates, explain why.  Here’s what she’s thinking on the very first page of my novel ...

written on the only substance which could survive decades, maybe longer, without batteries, which required only the light of the sun to be read, or the moon on a good night, or a flickering flame when there was no moon.  Paper.  A marvelous invention.  Thin and durable.

And paper also has what I call “reliable locatability” - what’s written on one part of a piece of paper today will be in the same place tomorrow.

So, much as I dislike bills, I actually prefer getting them on paper.

Meanwhile, if the history of phone and online service is any indication, iPhone AT&T service will sooner or later move to very low, flat rates for huge amounts of data.

 

Permalink | Email This | Comments (4)

Comments

  1. Paper is hardly the only substance that meets Ms. Waters’ criteria.  The reason it is used instead of parchment, vellum, plaster, or stone tablets is because it is lightweight and cheap to produce.

    Posted by Kevin on August 17, 2007 10:38 AM

  2. Absolutely.

    And stone tablets highlight an important point: they are the most durable of written media, but the least portable.

    Paper vs. stone is what led media theorist Harold Innis to talk about “time-binding” vs. “space-binding” media (in his 1950 Empire and Communications and his 1951 The Bias of Communication).  Innis, along with James Joyce, were the two most important influences on Marshall McLuhan.

    Posted by Paul Levinson on August 17, 2007 11:40 AM

  3. If we stopped using paper, what need would anyone have of planting more trees?

    As long as there is a use for paper, we have a need to plant, grow, and harvest trees.

    No more paper, no more trees.

    Posted by HippyAvenger on August 17, 2007 2:00 PM

  4. Well, I’ve planted trees on my property for fruit and shade and beauty ... but, yeah, there would certainly be a reduction in mass planting of trees if we left paper in the scrapheap…

    Posted by Paul Levinson on August 17, 2007 2:31 PM

Submit Comments

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Forums | About | Contact | Press | Privacy

©2007 sterndesign, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks and copyrights remain the property of their respective owners. Proudly powered by ExpressionEngine. Dedicated hosting by pMachine Hosting