obituary for the book?

Yesterday I found myself in a conversation about books. I always enjoy a good book talk. They tend to involve "book dropping" (i.e. discussion about new authors, new books, cool book nooks). But yesterday’s book talk turned deadly.

It led down the path of the technological, savvy, e-book. Or as I like to call it, death to books as we know them. 

 Image courtesy of clker.com  

Books “have to change", she told me. And I agree. Let’s start by making them (a lot) cheaper. Knowledge is for the limited few. Those who can buy it, can own it. 

Hence why I fancy used book stores and used book sales. Isn’t it amazing what you can find at these remarkable end of the line, last stop, book markets? Books that have been discarded for one reason or another. A landfill of good books. Many that have been discarded because they didn't win the Pulitzer prize, the Governor General's Literary Award or the Oprah Book Club. A lot of books are fabulous. Only a limited few are selected to win awards. 

Call me a book snob, but I personally like a physical, tangible, hardcopy version of a book. Not to mention, e-readers cost $$ plus, e-books cost $ plus, and on top of that, e-readers only allow you to “select” from a limited list of e-books (i.e., best sellers). 

We have to remember, not all change is socially good and not all change is socially bad. But, at the same time, simply accepting change because it has to happen isn't good either. In the case of e-readers and e-books: Is change happening because it benefits the book lover, the knowledge economy? Buying knowledge is big business, and according to me, e-books tapped into this market by making knowledge a lot more expensive, and a lot less accessible. Not to mention, what happens when the e-reader is no longer the "in" thing or, like other technologies, stops working? Does the environment have to suffer for "fashionable technology"? 

Whatever happened to curling up with a good book anyway? Curling up with a good e-reader doesn't have the same ring to it. All in all, I suggest we rebel. Let's swarm the library stacks. I'll meet you there. We'll talk books. 

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

If you Google the words “Japan Nuclear Meltdown”, I’m betting you get 196,000,000 plus hits. And not only that, but if you turn on any T.V. news broadcast (right now), I’m guessing you will be inundated with reports on Japan’s nuclear disaster. Reports of tragedy, stories of survival and hope and thoughts of: “It’s horrible, but I’m so glad it’s them and not me.” 

Well, it’s time to wake up earthlings. We’re all implicated. 

All this talk about Japan’s nuclear accident has me thinking a lot about nuclear power lately. According to Jožef Stefan Institute, there were 441 Nuclear Power Plants in operation worldwide in 2010; and twenty-seven out of thirty-one countries that currently use nuclear energy plan to build more nuclear reactors(1). When are we going to learn to say ‘no’ to nuclear power? 

According to James Lovelock, an independent scientist known for his Theory of Gaia, nuclear energy is not to be feared. Rather the dangers nuclear energy pose are “insignificant” in comparison to the risk of global warming. 

Most of all, they must drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its use as a secure, safe and reliable source of energy would pose a threat insignificant compared with the real threat of intolerable and lethal heatwaves and sea levels rising to threaten every coastal city of the world. Renewable energy sounds good, but so far it is inefficient and expensive. It has a future, but we have no time now to experiment with visionary energy sources: civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear energy now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet. (Lovelock, 2006, p. 11)

Is nuclear energy really the way to go? Should we, like Lovelock suggests, not concern ourselves with nuclear meltdowns and only focus on the big picture? It may be common sense to think that nuclear energy is the answer, but after Japan’s recent nuclear devastation and Chernobyl’s nuclear meltdown in 1986, should we really be looking towards nuclear energy as a solution to our energy crisis? 

For other thoughts on nuclear energy, I would recommend reading "David Suzuki: A nuclear reaction". 

Lovelock, J. (2006). The Revenge of Gaia. London: Penguin Books. 

Whether you like it or not, nothing is permanent. Everything is always shifting, changing and evolving. It's learning to grow with change that's never ending.