By Abigail Shiau and Enxiao Wang
As society develops, technology grows increasingly needed, with the help and guidance it can provide. With the internet’s accessibility stretching far and wide, with countless search engines and artificial intelligences, people today have arguably grown to rely upon electronics as a necessity. While they are undeniably useful, the growth of this form of media has preceded the death of another: physical, tangible creation.
As of February 2025, an estimated 5.78 billion people own mobile phones. This is already around 70.5 percent of the world population (Datareportal), an impressive (or perhaps concerning?) number even without insights into screen time habits. Of course, these are only numbers, but there is one clear message broadcast by them: the long-awaited age of technology is one we are already knee-deep in. With this uprising of digital technology, questions may have arisen regarding the worth and value of the physical and analogue devices that are gradually fading into historical tokens. For instance, let us think of newspapers. With digital newsletters and channels increasing in popularity, more and more people have flocked to them. It can be argued that physical newspapers are more grounding, with tangibility and connection, yet digital newspapers may be more accessible and interactive. Think of the article you’re reading right now; this is the first-ever fully digital edition of the Print! Compared to the previous physical copies, do you think that causes a difference?
No matter how you may have answered those questions, the fact remains that opinion is largely empirical, so now comes the time to look at this matter in an objective way. Let’s start with the pros and cons of each form, and then move into a comparison.
To begin, technology is undeniably strong when it comes to dissemination. As English comedian James Veitch once said, “The Internet gave us access to everything, but it also gave everything access to us.” This serves to highlight the dual nature of the internet’s accessibility; it is a double-edged sword of knowledge (and sometimes misinformation). It gets updated quickly, which makes research more efficient, but when that research is done for pernicious purposes (stalking, blackmail, etc), it becomes a hazard. It does wonders for easy, fast communication, but relationships built on this can be superficial. All kinds of fields have benefited from it—mathematics, navigation, marketing, economics, etc–yet technology is not always more effective than what it has replaced. Take signatures, for example (bear with me). While e-signatures can be more convenient, physical signatures can be more reliable at times, such as in the case of the signing of an important document or the dissolution of a fraud case.
At the same time, physical devices can sometimes prove to be less convenient than electronics. They can offer less accuracy at times, and are subject to deterioration, whereas digital devices tend to last longer. Let us think of metronomes (this one’s for the musicians). Analog metronomes often provide the aesthetic appeal of toneless clicks and simplicity, but app metronomes do not need to be wound up and can be downloaded with a single click.
That is perhaps the largest difference between digital and physical devices: beautiful, wonderful convenience.
That is not to say physical devices are inferior to their digital counterparts. If we continue the metaphor example, one must acknowledge as well the weaknesses of the app metronome. Having everything on a phone makes for quite a distraction, and the physical metronome, which serves one function, is what offers the most grounding experience. Additionally, there is one main advantage that physical tools have over digital ones, and it is that no digital tool could exist without its physical foundation. All the technology we have today is borne of the sacrifice of decades of drudgery and innovation. The impact of physical devices is irreplaceable, and digital devices only expand upon them.
Now, you may be wondering: so what? Or, perhaps, now what? Well, no topic can be fully understood without a final reflection of its consequences, existent or incipient.
Ultimately, the death of physical media goes back to where almost all technological discussions do: addiction. Whether that is to social media, video games, video platforms, etcetera, this upsurge in electronics marks what may be the start of the digital submersion (or digital takeover, if you’re feeling pessimistic). It is possible that there will someday come the upheaval of the final physical tool, the death of the last speaker of tangible language. The irony of that statement—and this article—is that the Print takes place in a wholly online environment now, as mentioned before. This work can almost be considered a satire, with its reflections of tangibility set in a carcass of digitalization. That may cause you to wonder, will our efforts in preserving “real” connections finally come to fruition? Will the inventions that are now written in history books be preserved for the millennia to come? That is something we do not have the answer to, but if there is only one thing that you can take away from this article, let it be this; no matter what form something comes in, no matter how its function or appearance may evolve, its inherent purpose—its “soul” will always remain.
And that is why we believe that the dying of physical media is not the end of a means, but rather, the gradual inception of a new dawn.