I don’t mind “the Library” because I think it helps distinguish the concept of the library from the individual libraries where we work and read.

I don’t mind “negativity.” But I feel like the Darien statements provide a framework for discussing what is valuable about libraries (or “the Library”) in almost any imaginable future. It’s not as memorable and elegant as Ranganathan’s Laws, but I admire the attempt at universality. With Taiga, I honestly don’t know what to do with a list of unsupported dystopic pronouncements. They feel a little like trolling, where to engage them at all is to lose. I don’t know. I could be wrong. I could easily be overreacting.

Frankly, I find much to criticize in both. Since you opened the door to style “this is the group of futurists .. and all their stuff in PDF right,” and leaving aside the Word docs of the Darien Statements, doesn’t the whole “the Library”—capitalized every time—irritate you? “The purpose of the Library is to preserve the integrity of civilization.” That may not provoke librarians, but you can bet many outsiders look at that and think “overblown Victorianism in the service of an exaggerated sense of self.” The Taiga statements are gloomy, but the Darien ones are pious.

Second, I could not agree with you more. Taiga’s pumped enough negativity into the discussion sphere already. I’d rather look forward with hope and optimism, and dedicate my available energy to being a proponent of the parts of our work that truly matter — to us, to our users, to the world. And the Darien document is a far better conversation-starter to that end.