There are a number of angles to this issue, but the bottom line is that I have not nor never will forsake the printed page.
I've been around for several decades and have accumulated well over 1000 printed books. Some are novels by authors I love to re-read every 5-10 years [Heinlein, Lovecraft, Doyle, Koontz, etc, etc.] and some are reference books of various types that never have and may never be digitized. Why would I "not read them" just because I now ADDITIONALLY have the ability to acquire digital texts? Briefly: ebooks are an "and also" not an "instead of" printed books.
Under some conditions I would prefer a digital book to the same book in print for the same price. But it irks the crap out of me that publishers charge a similar price for ebooks, which cost next to nothing to reproduce, as they do for some printed books. I'm cranky, and I just refuse to submit to unreasonable profiteering via a new medium. If they're going to charge me the same [or similar] price, I'll take the paper version that I can BURN for heat if the power cuts off in mid-winter!
Unless one owns a large tablet-size ereader [I don't], there are some texts with diagrams/illustrations/tables that just don't render well on a 6" e-ink screen, so the print version is the only usable option.
Going back to one aspect I mentioned in #1: there are some printed books just not available in digital text form. For example, the snooty librarians at Miskatonic U. will not let me
scan the Latin translation by Olaus Wormius of the Necronomicon. . .
But I do admit that I spend more time reading ebooks than printed ones!