How do you justify the killing of trees when a tree free

>>9465633
I care more about little Taiwanese children than fucking trees

>>9465633

That shit will end up in a landfill and remain that way for a 1000 years. At least books will return to the earth to provide sustenance for new life.

>>9465633

I own books that are as functional and readable now as when they were printed over 200 years ago.

trees grow back

>>9465633
Half of the people on this board plan on killing themselves before they turn 30. Not that many trees are gonna get killed by us

>>9466215

And less than 1% of them will do it and succeed.

>>9465633

When the oil runs out and the system collapses all around you, you'll be glad the printed page exists.

>>9465633
LOL NO STRINGS ATTACHED TO E DASH READERS THAT ARE MADE OF PLASTIC AND NANOBOTS THAT SWARM OUT OF IT AND SUCK YOUR SOUL INTO THE GREY ABYSS OF THE NETHERWORLD

PAPER SMELLS LIKE NOTHING AND HAS NO TEXTURE OR CONNECTIONS TO NATURE LIKE A PLASTIC MOLD THAT HAS NO ORGANIC ROOTS AND POPS UP AND TRIES TO $ELL YOU $HIT UNLIKE A FAGGOT ASS FUCKING TREE GOD

>>9465633
>thinks he's making an ecological decision by purchasing technology that will be obsolete within a decade, and consumes significant amounts of rare minerals, energy and other precious and polluting resources.

Why should I need to justify killing trees? Can you prove the killing of trees to be unethical? Does the controlled temporary culling of a renewable resource, for which I have bartered currency accepted for its value based on my own labor, present an ethical dilemma?

Piggybacking off other posts, I'm pretty sure the book industry contributes a SMALL fraction of total trees cut down per year.

>>9465633
>says the faggot who lives in a house made of wood

>>9467478
>He doesn't live in a delivering wood box ala Diogenes.

>>9465638
Fpbp

Child labour mining for all the required raw materials to make an ebook is more important to me than chopping a few trees.