Agree 100% with the point being made here, but the two examples used are also examples of the (large) weaknesses of centralized systems, which is much more abstract, often overlooked, and can be a much greater threat to our well being. A centralized system that everyone depends on will hurt everyone when it fails. A robust, decentralized system limits this exposure.
A single electrical grid certainly is. I'd prefer to see local co-operatives buying utilities from competing networks. The co-ops would own the last mile and could pick the combination of technology, price and robustness that suits them. And when one fails, they hook up to a competitor.
If Japan had had that arrangement, instead of having to bail out the utility monopoly that failed to prevent the Fukushima disaster, they could have just let it go bankrupt and spent only what it took to clean up the mess. And that distinct possibility might have helped prevent the disaster to begin with. They might have figured out how to move the pumps high enough above, for example. Or made provisions to bring in new pumps by helicopter.
A disciplined standing army is more vulnerable too, in some situations, than highly decentralized forces. If you can get the leaders to surrender, that's it. But those pesky insurgents never give up.
And then there's the French Navy, whose leaders refused to send them out to sea when the Nazis were invading. Churchill ending up destroying it so it wouldn't fall into enemy hands. Those ships could have been used to help the evacuation and then fight the Nazis at sea.
Centralization is becoming a problem in disaster relief now too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/us/nationalspecial/after-f...