Summer in Hangzhou was brief this year, quickly giving way to cool, rainy weather. Walking beneath the streetlights, the city’s nightscape reflected in the puddles. My gaze landed on the plain, beige, checkered folding umbrella in my hand. Umbrellas were invented during the Spring and Autumn period by Yun, Lu Ban’s wife. Their purpose was simple: protect from sun and rain, much like the old oil-paper umbrellas. They’ve been around for over 3,000 years, largely unchanged. Why?

Consider the evolution of the Chinese character for “umbrella” (伞). It’s quite telling – it’s looked like this since ancient times. Compare the character to umbrellas, past and present. Have the ribs really changed that much?

Today, we have straight and folding umbrellas. Folding ones even come in three-fold and four-fold versions. There are unconventional designs, like the Senz umbrella. But open them up, strip away the fabric, and they’re fundamentally the same. You probably see my point. It’s not about how umbrellas could be improved, but why they haven’t been replaced.

There are alternatives. Raincoats are a classic, but less convenient, used mostly when we need both hands free. The Air Umbrella uses air jets to create a shield, pushing raindrops away. I haven’t tested it, so I can’t speak to its energy use or noise. But one thing’s certain: any energy-using umbrella will always cost more than a purely mechanical one. This will hold true, no matter how technology advances, until umbrellas disappear entirely.

Other alternatives surround us: cars, buildings, underground walkways. If anything truly obsoletes mechanical umbrellas, it won’t be a new umbrella, but a combination of factors. Perhaps garages will become ubiquitous, cities will develop extensive underground tunnels, or covered walkways will proliferate. Maybe, like Asimov’s Trantor, the entire planet will be domed. I certainly hope not.

But I’m getting sidetracked. Let’s not dwell on how umbrellas might vanish. Instead, why have they persisted in this form for 3,000 years? Is this their optimal form?

I believe so. By “optimal,” I mean the most enduring, lowest-consumption way for umbrellas to coexist with us. There are things we only think about when needed. Otherwise, we don’t care. Umbrellas, air conditioners, streetlights, map apps, spare tires… What do we want from them? Durability and low consumption. If I wear a watch just to tell time, why buy an Apple Watch and charge it daily?

Mechanical umbrellas excel in both. First, low consumption: money, space, time, effort. Folding umbrellas are already optimal: light, compact, and zero-energy, apart from the calories burned opening and closing them. Imagine a scenario where, by some mysterious force, we lost all electricity – no computers, lights, batteries. What would still be valuable? My bicycle. Purely mechanical, human-powered things are inherently zero-consumption.

Then, durability. Many mistakenly believe advanced things are less prone to breaking due to “better quality.” Not true. Adding advanced tech grants powerful functions, but also increases complexity. Complexity shortens lifespan. It’s a law of physics – without external energy, maintaining a stable, ordered state long-term is impossible, regardless of quality. The most enduring way to preserve text and images? Not hard drives. Ancient paper, ink, and bamboo slips can last millennia; electronic media can’t. Even paper and ink decay. Stonehenge comes to mind.

Of course, we don’t need heirloom umbrellas. But I also don’t want it demanding attention or wasting energy. This is where mechanical devices shine. We’ve seen the smart home appliance craze. Smart chips are crammed into everything, providing computing power, network connectivity, and data transmission.

I once thought appliance control would centralize into a single remote, an app, or voice activation. But that doesn’t hold up. A mechanical light switch can last decades. To add another way to turn on a light, we add a wireless module, constant power, maintain Wi-Fi, incorporate voice recognition, handle the coordination between electronic and mechanical controls, occasionally replace components, and bear the costs… I’d rather just install extra mechanical switches.

A rational look at technology and progress shows that nothing goes to extremes; things settle into their most suitable form. For items with simple functions and structures, mechanical control is their destiny.

This is the eternal life of machines.