[dhfromkorea]

That may be true. And perhaps the same argument could be made for Chinese characters?

Could you elaborate on why the alphabetic system is intrinsically more efficient than Chinese characters in terms of recovering messages from partial loss of texts?

[dctoedt]

Spatial dispersal of the glyphs means that fewer glyphs would be taken out by any given insect-gnawed hole, UV-radiation fading, hurled paint glob, etc., and thus less of the overall message would be lost to that single incident of damage.

It's the same principle as how soldiers are trained to spread out when in battle: If they bunch up, it increases the risk that a single mortar shell (or artillery round or machine-gun burst) could take out a lot of troops.

[dhfromkorea]

Oh, now I see. Thank you for explaining your point succinctly.

Though I do not have data to back up my argument, I still reckon the Chinese glyphs/scriptures would have had a better chance of survival.

While I think your point is valid, its disadvantages outweigh the advantage, at least since paper/papyrus was invented.

Being spread out to double in length (double being an arbitrary multiplier) would still be inferior to being dispersed to two physical locations (redundancy). I think this is where don't put all your eggs in one basket holds true.

Plus, important docs must have been actively maintained by hired librarians(?). With human maintenance involved, less in volume could have been an advantage for it is easier to move around and maintain the docs. Ofc, when left out in the wild, it is a different story.

Personally I do not like Chinese character system as it has so high a barrier to entry for learners. I love alphabets, Korean Hangeul, or Japanese Hira/Katakana for this matter. Have you tried learning any of those? :-)