The underlying issue is that while decentralization makes one more stable and less susceptible to unexpected crises in the long term, centralization is almost a

The underlying issue is that while decentralization makes one more stable and less susceptible to unexpected crises in the long term, centralization is almost always stronger and more efficient in the short term. Diverse food supplies, separate cultures, multiple governments may be necessary for long term human survival, but historically, the monoculture gobbled those up as soon as it has the technology. That, and you could argue that for some problems, large scale cooperation is always going to be needed, and these problems could surface on the very, very long term; i.e., a decentralized world might be antifragile for most problems, but if a meteor hits the Earth, you'd wish it had been coordinated enough to colonize Mars. The question is how we maintain decentralization even as all short-term goals push us towards monoculture, and without completely destroying the long-term benefits of large civilization (i.e., I'm not an anarcho-primitivist.) And the only answers I can think of are bizarre and science-fictional, but I suppose that doesn't mean they can't come true.