Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

Are e-readers better than printed books? Show more Show less

Books are constantly evolving. In the 21st century, we no longer read from a page, but read from a glass screen that can hold hundreds or thousands of texts. E-readers have revolutionised the way people read, and for many have made it much more accessible. But how does it weigh up to the traditional paperback?

E-readers are better Show more Show less

Technology definitely offers a lot of perks, like cost efficiency and environmental friendliness.
(1 of 2 Positions) Next >

E-readers are more environmentally friendly

E-readers provide an environmentally friendly alternative that decreases the amount of paper utilized, which improves the Earth’s sustainability by reducing deforestation.
(1 of 4 Arguments) Next >

Context

The Argument

Reading with electronic devices means that paper is not needed. This saves a lot of trees and is potentially a solution to excessive deforestation.

Counter arguments

The production of electronic devices such as tablets and phones are not especially environmentally friendly either. The International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN) was founded in concern for growing amounts of electronic waste around the world, which contain many hazardous chemicals. According to Greenpeace statistics, e-waste is the fastest growing component of municipal solid waste, and the rate of increase is even three times faster than the total waste stream in Europe and the UK.

Framing

Premises

[P1] E-readers do not require the use of paper. [P2] Therefore, they are more environmentally friendly than books.

Rejecting the premises

Proponents

Further Reading

References

    Explore related arguments

    This page was last edited on Wednesday, 3 Jun 2020 at 16:31 UTC