Probably because it's a bad criticism? Really the only solid criticism in his comment is pointing out the charcoal usage, albeit quick Japanese wiki lookup on k

Probably because it's a bad criticism? Really the only solid criticism in his comment is pointing out the charcoal usage, albeit quick Japanese wiki lookup on kotatsu show some conflicting information too. - Pesticides: counter arguments based on anecdotes without factual backing that is not refuting the core argument either. (Straw-man) - The specialization point in sewing: Straw-man. Sure specialization existed, but that wasn't even the point of the original argument. (and sewing was more to fix bought clothes; because they were too expensive to replace every-time they became unusable) - laundering clothes: again Straw-man, and also mixing up "hand washing your cloth" today compared to back in the days; it's not that hard to imagine that the condition of the cloths, the tear and wear, material of the clothes etc is pretty different from now. - People didn't live in remote area: factually incorrect (except the energy for laying roads). The political touch in the end just shows the true biased color of the criticism. The article is not perfect but those criticism are at best anecdotal counter examples, with nothing to back it up.