notthebestchristian

notthebestchristian t1_j5p6hep wrote

In the hierarchy of needs you’re talking about a vanity project, not a necessity, and one that is primarily utilized by a sliver of the population.

Only 7% report going to the library weekly, 1/6 of the population never goes.

If there is a market for a “third place”, the private sector will step in (see: Starbucks). If there is demand for libraries or internet cafes the private sector will step in. There is no reason for the public to fund this particular legacy institution.

13 billion dollars per year spent on public libraries. To put that in perspective, the amount we spend on libraries is equal to the 77th largest world economy by GDP (out of 163 total).

Like I said, that funding could be put to actual good use, like housing the homeless.

−2

notthebestchristian t1_j5o7i9q wrote

I guess I don’t understand at all. Is it because of book licensing? We can still provide the same service electronically with digital books, which don’t deforest. Just heating and cooling libraries is a massive and unnecessary economic and environmental cost.

Plus the physical space could be converted to house every single homeless person in the US so they can masturbate at home instead of needing to go to the library. I see nothing but wins here.

2

notthebestchristian t1_j5mvvxh wrote

AI will be able to read every single book ever made for you and provide you with a new and novel book club with AI views and opinions.

Libraries are already an extremely expensive legacy product. The government could take the money collectively spent on libraries (13.37 billion annually), and provide every American with free high speed internet.

Your industry is on borrowed time.

7