The ability to physically remote (non-tower) ATC Units has become quiet common for economic and/or efficiency reasons. Vast volumes of airspace are routinely controlled from hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away. Area control units no longer have to be sited on or near airports or radar stations.
Why not take this process a step further by diurnally transferring ALL flight data, surveillance data and communications capabilities between (paired) area control units which are located in time zones which significantly different from each other? For example, an area control facility in the Eastern Time Zone could hand-off it's control responsibilities to a designated facility in the Pacific Time Zone (or, better still, in Hawaii). The timing of inter-unit transfer of control would follow an established routine which would be chosen to minimise - if not eliminate - the requirement for ATS personnel to provide safety-critical services when normal human ability to do so is unfortunately at it's (scientifically-proven) minimum.
Admittedly, problems would have to be faced with the planned implementation of this somewhat radical idea - but problem solving is something air traffic personnel do rather well. Cost would also be a serious concern; but cost should always, of course, be considered in concert with benefit! Several benefits are easy to identify - but one which is perhaps less obvious is the concomitant back-up capability which such an initiative would provide. We have never, ever, experienced the total loss of an en-route control facility - but then, until a decade ago, we hadn't experienced "9/11" either! To those who would demur on grounds of cost alone, I would challenge them to estimate how much a court might award against an aviation authority found negligent in having an "improperly rested" controller failing to prevent a major air disaster.