Putting down "N/A" for battery life aspect of a paper book clearly shows the bias here. Further, failing to mention ownership and permanence aspects of the content is a glaring omission. And then there is durability and risk: if I drop a book it likely is still fully usable. And it's much less likely that someone would steal a book compared to an electronic device. Eventual disposition also matters: a book involves no e-waste and will not last for centuries in a landfill.
Saying “N/A” for battery life isn’t biased, it simply highlights that books don’t need a battery at all, unlike e-readers. As for durability and theft, books can be damaged by water, fire, or time, while a well-protected e-reader keeps hundreds of books safe... Regarding environmental impact, pointing out e-reader e-waste while ignoring the pollution caused by producing paper books clearly shows bias, making books requires cutting down trees, which are effectively killed in the process, plus transportation and processing, while one e-reader can replace hundreds of physical books over its lifetime.
2 comments