Death of the physical library
scottlocklin.wordpress.com
scottlocklin.wordpress.com
When combined with poor education systems, the outcome must be ignorance.
In the event of global catastrophe we won't even know what we need to learn.
Yes, I agree, those who are already interested or motivated need less help.
But to educate most people, and young developing minds especially, brief browsy exposure to unplanned topics is what might create the interest and motivation in the first place. The peripheral glances at compelling covers and spines. The topics you didn’t come to search for and maybe you didn’t even know exist.
You can’t search an opaque virtual library for what you haven’t yet seen a spark or crumb of. Hands-on, tactile, flip flip flip, put it back, flip flip flip … irreplaceable.
A section of a library I used to visit used Bliss categorisation, which is just so conducive to discovery!
Kids are naturally curious about the world, but keeping them engaged with learning and growing through exposure and study largely falls on parents and teachers.
We're living in the Information Age (for better or worse), and my kids have been exposed to far more topics than I came across in libraries. It's easy to keep them interested, but I feel like the disappearance of libraries reduces the accuracy and quality of Information.
I've seen mine and other's kids rattle off a crazy amount of "facts" but still fall short in problem solving, applying knowledge, etc.
We want ignorance to be fought societally - the people you interact with should be as little ignorant as possible.
> online databases
Found users are hit with the highest legislative sanctions, increasingly.
It's not practical to have 100's of reference books and texts, but if I've got access to a good library I can juxtapose several references and texts in a way that digital technologies can't emulate.
Some libraries use wonderful classification systems such as Bliss, which really appeals to me for the way it seemingly shelves books on different subjects according to the kind of thinking thats gone into them.
It's worse than that since even if we had books the real knowledge about how to rebuild is stored in past generations of doers. Even if you had a physical book on how to make a smelter, or a car factory, or even how to hunt for food, that is far different than actually doing it, having experience with it. I think many people, especially geeks, vastly overestimate their ability to adapt to changing conditions with the aid of books, physical or otherwise.
Also, you're right - all things being equal, digital content in lieu of physical books is strictly worse. The oldest words we know of were written in stone, clay, papyrus. Words that were written in magnetic particles only 10 years ago are lost entirely.
Discovery indeed comes in many forms, sometimes by proximity, other times by serendipity, size of the book, even what sits on the recently returned racks.
In a similar sense, I mourn the death of printed phone books and yellow pages. And printed encyclopedia, dictionaries and atlases.
The loss of the physical formats removed forever, extremely interesting aspects of browsing and learning from these sources.
Later, when I no longer had a university affiliation and was not living in an English-speaking country, I missed those libraries terribly. The arrival of the Internet felt like an intellectual reawakening to me; I am especially grateful now for the efforts of the Internet Archive.
Other than out of nostalgia, I have no desire to use physical libraries again.
Internationally, access to information has vastly improved. I remember when visiting scholars from 3rd world countries would spend most of their free time photocopying things from the library to take back home.
For slow-moving or completely crystallized knowledge, like what you get in OReilly-type general manuals and textbooks, nothing beats a dead tree.
Even for a complicated novel, I really prefer paper nowadays. And it can never get censored post-purchase.
The author makes a great case for the serendipity of stumbling across information that you didn’t even know you didn’t know—but not that field! That’s a field for children how dare it defile his libraries with its existence. He doesn’t care about it, so why on earth would anyone?
He betrayed his entire thesis.
For those who love libraries here is a fantastic one to visit:
https://www.litandphil.org.uk/
Based in Newcastle upon-Tyne, UK it is highly wonderful. If you are ever in the area and love books simply pop in!
While alphabetically indexed lists of http links would most certainly be prone to rot, other modes of information storage can be more resilient than physical libraries, and easier to access.
Also the internet can not replicate the social possibilities enabled by physical proximity.
But that is unfortunately overshadowed by the out-of-left-field dismissive and insulting comment about literature in a different field, and about business majors. Frankly, those few sentences overshadow the point that he tried to make: that preservation of knowledge is important. Overshadowed because he made it obvious that this principle applies only to material the author personally considers worthy of preserving.
Taking the author at his word, I have to ask: if representation of Topic X is excessive in a business school's library, why should any space at all be dedicated at all to your pet interests over the needs of paying students?