Why are we restraining your argument? The same thing can be said here.
If BOOKS were lost, we could use technology.
It's unlikely, but technology failing is also unlikely. It's the fact that your argument for using books is that technology will be lost.
As for your edit, nearly all authors would stop writing of technology was lost.
If we lost computers, how many people do you think would write full on books? Not many.
Your pretty much saying that of lost a whole aspect of society, and then lost books, we would write using paper. The argument by itself is flawed since technology is used to write nowadays.
Let's change your statement again.
Let's say we lost the capability to write on paper (or that paper is ridiculously expensive, since nearly all the tress in the world are gone), and technology was still there. Would we read on the computer? Yes.
That's exactly what your arguing here. If you couldn't use technology, what would you do? I would read on paper. That doesn't prove your argument at all.