Next week we will have a story about how suffering through summer heat with a wet towel and sleeping all day are “making a comeback”.
It's an option with some cultural history behind it, and might be just the right solution for some use cases.
Here's an example, the open source community has spent thousands of man hours developing various note-taking apps. And they're pretty good, usually. I could use something like Foam to manage my notes, learn to use the keyboard shortcuts, figure out how to sync it between my devices, learn every other little thing about it...
Or I could just use pen and paper. Which requires no electricity, no computer, is durable and does not have a learning curve to use.
> regressive
That depends on your definition of regressive. If you designate it as regressive, you create a circular argument: it must be worse, somehow.
IMHO, there's nothing inherently better about tech that is newer - why do I care if it's newer? - and many see complexity as the enemy of good engineering. Technology is tools and the only question is, how well do they deliver on the needs and specifications (which include efficiency and cost)?
> Why enjoy whole home climate control ...
Whole home climate control has more whole world climate impact, so it doesn't deliver well on many people's specifications.
Because it is more expensive and more energy intensive than a direct application of heat to the occupant's skin?
Some people care about their resource usage, or how much money they spend on climate control. You also have situations where multiple people live in the same climate control zone, and have different preferences for temperature. If I like it at 67 and my wife likes it at 74, and we're both uncomfortable at 70, how can whole home climate control solve this issue?