I learn't a long time ago to deal with realities.
Perhaps I'm still so young and idealistic as to think that reality is what we make it to be. I am definitely too young to remember the introduction of synthetic fibres : ), although I do believe I understand your analogy. You are basically stating that, as these NAS changes are introduced, we are gradually working towards a better system, which, although may be uncomfortable in the transition, it will all be worthwhile as we will eventually attain a far better and more refined system in the future.
There are two problems with this analogy. Firstly, the end state NAS is not known. We don't know what we are getting, and unfortunately our industry is not driven to perfection as the development of comfortable clothing is, for the best system to become inevitable. At any point, for reasons political or practical, we may be stuck with a particular stage of transition as the end state. Do we want that as a possibility? Do we want to be permanently itchy? To say that this is all the more reason why we should push on with the changes is to present a circular argument.
Secondly, the "itchiness" we experience now is not just indicative of discomfort, it also signifies a drop in safety. I contend that there is no good reason to decrease safety at any stage, even if the end result may be safer. The removal of frequencies/boundaries from maps is one of these decreases in safety. It is a conscious effort by the ARG and NASIG to change the culture of VFR pilots so that they get out of the habit of using the radio to separate from other traffic or gain SA about the airspace they are in.
Another tactic towards this aim is to get pilots to turn on their landing lights below A100. Another is for the NAS IG to put an ad in Flight Safety magazine telling VFR pilots not to request QNH info from ATC. Yet another is to increase the vagaries of CTAF communication by having only recommended procedures and indeterminate airspace boundaries.
I stand by my previous comment that
the implementation process is not more important than the safety of the system. No decrease in safety in a transitional state should be acceptable. If the ones that make the decisions think that it is acceptable, and that it is a vallid tactic to implement a change, then they shouldn't be in the business.