No, there is only too little time for reading.
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2022
1 points (53.8% liked)
Asklemmy
43531 readers
2387 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Too true
No
Not enough. We need more, a lot more.
Yes. There shouldn't be more than 37 books at any given time.
no
Yes. There are too many terrible books out there, just look at the self help section of any typical bookstore.
I appreciate that there's enough books for a lifetime. It don't matter much to me whether we have collectively more than enough or not; I find myself most of the time reading old books (about 3/4 of what I read this year wasn't from the 21st century) but that's just me. Though I don't want to imprisoned by the knowledge those books bring for the entirety of my life, I want to be closer to Nature, contribute to my community and apply this knowledge in useful places.