I need to clarify, I think...

I re-read my previous, and it is a bit muddy.

The "ruralization" I was referring to is simple: communities built around a small-town/neighborhood infrastructure that provides as many of the "vitals" of daily life as possible. Water, power, gas, food, police/fire, and medical care (at least basic care).

In the hearts of most older, larger cities like New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, one finds a doctor's office, a grocer, a baker, a fire house/police precinct... all the necessities of daily life within a 12-square block area. The connection with a small town/village should be obvious. Places like "Little Italy", "China Town" and "Spanish Harlem" all qualify as great examples within the island of Manhattan.

In normal times, these facilities provide convenient and fast services to those living closest to them... but in times of crisis, they very well could be the ONLY facilities operating that those within walking distance could take advantage of.

This kind of "de-centralization" has security advantages, too. WHY did the terrorists TWICE target the WTC and the Wall Street District? To cripple the economy and NYC's municipal infrastructure... and it very nearly worked. WHY was it that after 9/11, the US suddenly decided it was worth $16 billion a year to protect places like the Hoover, Glen Canyon and Grand Coulee Dams? Because with ONE big bomb, terrorists could literally erase as much as 2500 square miles of US cities, towns and homes... AND remove as much as 10% of the DRINKING water and as much as 8% of the electricity this country uses EVERY DAY. That's more lost power than all the hurricanes in the last 50 years have cost us... and there would be NO replcement generators or plants to "turn things on" afterwards, either.

Anyway... just wanted to clear up my "cloudy" post.