In his new book, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper, Nicholson Baker brings up an interesting point. For thousands of years,
paper records have allowed historians to glimpse human culture of the past. But
scholars of the future, Baker points out, might not be so lucky — thanks in part
to an over-reliance on technology.

What’s gotten Baker worried is the microfilming of our libraries. In the 1970s, a
movement began among librarians both in the United States and abroad to transfer
key historic documents from paper to microfilm. Paper, it was argued, is
impermanent, fragile and extremely susceptible to decay. Only through the
then-current technology of microfilm could archivists effectively preserve these
valuable historical records.

Ironically, in many cases the original paper copies were destroyed in the
process. Bindings were often cut from books to allow the pages to lie flat for
scanning. Newspapers were thrown away by the thousands — after all, libraries
now had access to a “permanent” edition. In many cases, no further original
copies of these publications are known to exist.

This destruction is a crime, says Baker, and one that has to stop. In his book,
he attacks the studies conducted in the 1970s that “proved” microfilm aged more
slowly than paper. The advertised 500-year lifespan, he claims, can occur only
under the most meticulously maintained climate and temperature conditions — a
task beyond the capabilities of many libraries.

The full article from the San Francisco Chronicle: Paper Trail: Can Digital Media Match The Longevity Of Plain Old Print?