My comment is not at all about which is the better archival medium. Nothing in your reply addresses my thesis that dead-tree books will cease to be produced for new content, and in fact have been already in many cases.
Dead-tree paper can only really be advantageous as you propose if you consider the cost of producing the physical artifact (printing, binding, shipping) a sunk cost. It may be a sunk cost in 1995, but my thesis is that it will not be a sunk cost in 2030. Stated alternately, it may be a better archival medium, but most books are not purchased on the basis of being reliable archives.
Although independent of the main premise, I do object to bit rot as being applicable to books. My library of ebooks spans 25GB, an amount that pales in comparison to my music collection, which normal people all have in digital format. 25GB can be backed up in minutes a year, and is far less than the effort people extend to climate-control a collection of dead trees and cart it around during moves.
Dead-tree paper can only really be advantageous as you propose if you consider the cost of producing the physical artifact (printing, binding, shipping) a sunk cost. It may be a sunk cost in 1995, but my thesis is that it will not be a sunk cost in 2030. Stated alternately, it may be a better archival medium, but most books are not purchased on the basis of being reliable archives.
Although independent of the main premise, I do object to bit rot as being applicable to books. My library of ebooks spans 25GB, an amount that pales in comparison to my music collection, which normal people all have in digital format. 25GB can be backed up in minutes a year, and is far less than the effort people extend to climate-control a collection of dead trees and cart it around during moves.
Would you be open to a long bet on this topic?