3 ms·
> Yes we still have paper and lots of it, but now it's significantly reduced. But a la Jevons Paradox [1] I'm sure the total amount of information being shuttl
by ssivark 5y ago
> Yes we still have paper and lots of it, but now it's significantly reduced.
But a la Jevons Paradox [1] I'm sure the total amount of information being shuttled around now is far more than what was being sent around on paper -- bu orders of magnitude. So it's not at all clear that we still have a lower net ecological footprint.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- aaron695 5y ago
- throw0101a 5y ago> But a la Jevons Paradox [1] I'm sure the total amount of information being shuttled around now is far more than what was being sent around on paper -- bu orders of magnitude. In general I'm glad for the easier access to information and being able to answer questions I have and learn things. But how much of that theoretically measurable amount is actually needed? If we cut the amount of bits transmitted by half, how much would the quality of life decrease? If we doubled it, how much would people's lives improve?