(Projoy) You really can't be allowed to get away with that. The proportion of paper in actual letters compared with the total amount of paper (newspapers, junk mail etc) that comes through my letterbox is very small. In any case, we're not short of trees; there are many more than there were 40-50 years ago, everywhere. To be honest, I'm not that keen on trees, they spoil the view and at one time threatened to undermine my house. Rather overrated, I feel.
[Rosie] Who says my annoyance is confined to only legitimate letters? As to "more trees", I don't know if that's true, although I guess you're more likely to know than I am, But don't we need even more trees at the moment to do Carbon Dioxide conversion? This is the general impression I have gained.
I suspect Rosie is right that there are more trees now than in the 50's. I'm pretty sure, however, that there were many more in the 30's and more still before WW1. Also, the tree-planting boom of the 50's 60's & 70's was mostly conifer plantations. Planting more trees as mixed woodland must be a good thing both aesthetically and as carbon sinks.
IIRC, commercial forestry supplies most of the pulp for paper - and that's a planting-and-harvesting operation of fast-growing monoculture conifers; it doesn't use wood from mixed and deciduous woodland.
(Projoy) It's true that trees fix carbon rather than letting it float free as CO2 but the number needed to make any difference is impractically large particularly considering the rate the Amazon jungle and other areas are being chopped down. Trees are nice but have become sacred, which is just silly. They undermine buildings, obscure the sky and the view, drop leaves on the railway line and are even allowed to obscure signals. The biodiversity of tree-free railway cuttings was incredible. Down with trees! BTW I don't quite understand your aversion to printed paper. I get cards all the time from my nieces in addition to all the emails, which is nice, and far better than when they were young teenagers and sent me electronic Christmas cards. Sod that.
[Rosie] Well, I suppose it's a personal preference, but I just find dealing with paper irritating these days. It becomes clutter very quickly. You can't miniaturise it and file it conveniently in a sensible folder system on a HDD. Cards and the like seldom express sentiments profound enough to be worth keeping, and for the most part are ritualistic and purposeless. Almost anything that could be said in a conventional letter could be said in an email, which is far more keepable these days.
[PJ, Rosie] Being a keen calligrapher - I mostly design and write greetings cards to close friends and family. They seem to appreciate the personal, snail-mail touch because it's evidence that one has made the effort. Far more 'keepable' I'd say.
I loathe "greetings cards", and I've just deleted my justification of that statement because I don't want to feel yet again that I'm the only one singing in tune :-)
[Phil] I'm only mentioning how much I despise commercial greetings cards so you know you're not alone. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even have botherd to mention it. Profit margins of 60%+?? The sleazy slimeballs.
I love cards. I love writing letters. I love recieving post of any form. I send lots of postcards when I go on holiday. I particuarly like hand made cards. I do get a bit pissed off when I get a Christmas card from someone I rarely keep in touch with just signed with their name, as I'd like a little newsbite. I try to lead by example and put a little line or two in each card, something personal to who its addressed to. I also mostly try to make my own Christmas cards, although I was defeated on that one last year (I sent over 85, and recieved a similar number). So, why do I like them. I accept that I do mostly just throw them away (or try to recycle) and it is a fair economic cost, but I like to keep in touch with as many people as I can and I think its a good way to show that you're thinking of someone. Hurrah for cards. That's what I say!
[Lib] If I want to know what someone whom I am otherwise too feckless to stay properly in contact with is up to, I'll usually google them or take a look at their blog or something. If I instead sent a card for the sheer sake of "staying in touch" what pleasure would it afford them to know that I thought of them... but didn't think enough of them to do more than send a card? You might argue that I miss the point, and I suppose I probably do. Obviously, not attacking anyone else's way of staying in touch, but that's how it's always seemed to me.