John M Last is an author of the «Fouling and Cleansing our Nest; Human-induced Ecological Determinants of Disease» Supercourse’s lecture.

I'm not knocking the Supercourse, I think it has achieved and continues to achieve great things. But as a lifelong bookworm and habitue of dusty, musty library stacks, and a voracious reader who reads anywhere and everywhere, I'm constantly conscious of places where I read that a computer, even a laptop, probably even a palm pilot, can't go or would have intolerable difficulty going.

Electronically produced and transmitted educational material has the most obvious advantages of speed and efficient worldwide dissemination and elimination of postal charges, etc. (Although the capital and running costs of computers and peripherals are probably higher).
 
PowerPoint slides and the accompanying oral commentary don't contain as much information as a printed paper, which if well-written, well-edited and well-presented, can be packed with information. It's easier and much faster for the eye-brain linkage to scan through a few printed pages than to scroll through multiple computer screens. It's easier on the eyes too, to read print than to read computer screens, and we can read printed journals just about anywhere, whereas computer screens can't always go with us - to bed, to the bus or subway. Printed journals can be permanently archived (even if not printed on acid-free paper). The lifetime of electronic archives is unknown, but it seems unlikely they could survive at least 100 years or be useful for that long unless very efficiently indexed. If electronically transmitted scientific information is useful or original, its serious users download and print it -- and often encounter  formatting problems, missing segments of material such as figures and tables, to say nothing of the wasteful use of paper, polluting printers, etc.