answer:If our economic systems weren’t screwed up with false incentives, reverse incentives, well-meaning regulations with uncalculated and unintended consequences, questions such as this would be the simplest question in the world to answer. The answer would be: whatever is cheapest. That’s how I always answer these questions, because I’ll be damned if I’m going to attempt a cost-benefit analysis (other than dollar cost) on every purchase I make for the rest of my life. See how simple? Book publishing on paper has certain costs, from the paper and ink and binding materials, the transportation of those items to the publishing plant, physical creation of the book and shipment, distribution, marketing and retailing of the bound copy. (After it’s purchased, then it’s yours to do with – and dispose of – as you will.) Electronic publishing should also have included in its cost per copy all of the goods and services (all of the electrons, including their generation and transmittal). (The electronic versions include ‘free’ transmittal via various means – WiFi or 3G, for example – which are not paid for by the purchaser in the cost of the transmitted copy.) That doesn’t quite answer your question, I know. The reader has a one-time cost of purchase, even with zero books, and the per-copy cost of the e-books is nearly comparable to the printed copies you can buy. So on the face of it, the e-reader is maybe not the best way to go if you don’t read a lot. However, if you read a lot of books, the e-reader really makes up for its initial purchase cost by enabling you to shop without traveling to a bookstore. That in itself makes it a great deal, I think. I love my Nook®. In addition, an e-reader allows you to “carry” a lot of books in a package that only weighs as much as the reader itself, and that’s a big potential savings, too.