"Maintaining public libraries is a waste of money, while computer science can replace them". To what extend do you agree or disagree?

Today, many people believe that maintaining public libraries is unnecessary because computer technology can replace them completely. However, in my opinion, although using electronic libraries is a brilliant way to save money, traditional libraries are still unplaceable. Firstly, it is undeniable that virtual libraries are more cost-efficient than traditional ones because they do not require a great deal of budget spending on building libraries, maintaining equipment and books. However, it is also clear that spending hours looking at the computer screen to read has an adverse bearing on people’s health. According to several studies, ultraviolet radiation from the screen can cause dry eyes and affect brain muscles, effectively causing insomnia. Therefore, reading books in a traditional library is considered a way to protect people’s health. Secondly, public libraries also have some advantages that electronic libraries do not have. It is obvious that there are several factors that have a bad effect on people while reading at home such as noise from outside and others’ bothering, whereas a public library can provide everyone with a completely quiet place to concentrate on the books. Additionally, although the Internet is widespread around the world, there are many areas where inhabitants cannot access it such as remote areas in Mongolia and Africa. Moreover, there are a large number of underprivileged who do not have an opportunity to attend formal education. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain public libraries in order to guarantee that citizens irrespective of their financial backgrounds can access knowledge. In conclusion, although electronic libraries are superior to traditional public libraries in several aspects, there is no reason to completely replace the latter with the former.