Each issue has its upsides and downsides to the argument of going digital vs. staying with print. In Dustin’s case the positive changes would be that the environment would be improved greatly if we were to quit cutting trees for books. Deforestation would be reduced as well as other wildlife animals being able to keep their homes. However, the ultimate change for going digital will not help everybody because there are still many people in the world who cannot afford a computer, let alone internet service. If everything were to go digital it would be putting most of the world in a sort of secluded club or group which would not benefit those who cannot afford it. The only real upside to going digital is safety for the environment (which is a big deal) but it won’t affect everyone positively.
In Hannah’s case her main issue was the fact that humans would lose the feel and magic of flipping through a book. In her explanation there are several upsides, books will have more of a use if we continue to use them, talented writers won’t be pirated for their work (as easily) and even though she did not bring this up in her argument people’s eyes won’t be damaged as easily. It has been proven that looking at a bright computer screen for long periods of time affects eyesight poorly, which won’t necessarily happen with books (unless you read in the dark). However, in going with Hannah’s side we also have to consider the fact that deforestation will continue to be a problem to the world overall. However, this would mean that more people can enjoy the magic of books just like it was before the computer era began.
Although it is difficult to side with either I think that I would have to agree with Dustin’s case the best. The fact that the environment will be saved is enough to give it a shot and because I believe that our mutual goal as a species is to advance into the future and not to stay held back with certain limits (although this argument is a really, really close call).