dependence on one systemA modern society should not have to choose between self-sufficiency and interdependence. It should combine the local capacity to survive with the global capacity to cooperate.
1. The Problem with the Old Model
The modern world has been built on far-reaching systems of dependency.
Energy, food, fuel, medicines, industrial components, technologies and everyday goods very often come from places hundreds or thousands of kilometres away. We rely on global supply chains, vast electricity grids, centralised financial systems and infrastructure whose operation we barely notice from day to day.
As long as everything works, this model seems convenient and efficient.
The problem begins when there is a breakdown, a war, a natural disaster, a cyberattack, an energy crisis or a disruption to transport. Then it becomes clear that our everyday security depends on structures over which we have no real influence.
A person can work hard, act responsibly and be resourceful and sensible, yet suddenly lose access to energy, food, fuel, money or basic services because one part of a larger system has failed.
This is the weakness of excessive dependence.
The problem is not that we benefit from global cooperation. It is that we often have no alternative when the global system stops working.
Relying entirely on one energy source, one supply route, one payment system or one decision-making centre may be convenient for a community in stable times, but it leaves that community highly vulnerable to a crisis.
2. Why It Once Made Sense
This model of dependence did not arise by chance.
Over recent decades, the world has pursued efficiency above all else. Production moved to wherever it was cheaper. Inventories were reduced to cut costs. Deliveries were organised so that goods arrived exactly when they were needed. Energy flowed from large sources to millions of users. International trade allowed regions, countries and businesses to specialise.
This model brought many benefits.
It gave people access to cheaper products, accelerated technological development, enabled mass production and connected people through a global network of exchange. Global supply chains made many goods widely available, while economic cooperation between countries helped develop industry, trade and infrastructure.
In a stable world, such a system seems rational.
If nothing goes wrong, it makes economic sense to choose the cheapest source, the shortest delivery time and the largest scale of production.
The difficulty is that social life does not take place only under stable conditions.
The world is not a production line operating in perfect conditions. It is a complex system subject to disruption, wars, pandemics, droughts, floods, power cuts, political crises and infrastructure failures.
What looks like optimisation in stable times can turn out to be fragility in a crisis.
3. Why It Is No Longer Enough
Today, we can see ever more clearly that efficiency is not the same as resilience.
A system can be cheap, fast and optimised yet highly vulnerable to disruption. Without reserves, local alternatives or the ability to operate independently, even a minor failure can have consequences far greater than the original problem.
In a world of growing uncertainty, efficiency alone is no longer enough.
Natural disasters can destroy infrastructure. Wars can interrupt supplies of energy and raw materials. Cyberattacks can disable financial systems or public services. Transport crises can halt the flow of goods. Grid failures can cut off entire regions from electricity.
In such situations, the most important question is not: was the system cheap to run?
It is: can the community keep functioning when part of the system stops working?
This is where autonomy comes in.
Autonomy does not mean isolation. It does not mean cutting ourselves off from the world or giving up global cooperation.
Autonomy means being able to act when the larger system runs into difficulties.
An autonomous community can still benefit from global exchange, technology, knowledge and trade. The difference is that it is not entirely helpless when outside sources fail.
4. Examples from the World
The blockage of the Suez Canal in March 2021 offered a clear example of the fragility of global dependencies.
On 23 March 2021, the container ship Ever Given ran aground, blocking one of the world's most important trade arteries. Shipping between Europe and Asia was halted for six days, and hundreds of vessels were stranded on either side of the canal.
At first glance, this might have seemed to be a problem for the transport industry alone. The reality proved far more complex.
The effects were felt well beyond shipowners and carriers. Oil prices rose as markets feared disruption to energy supplies. Europe's automotive industry began warning of possible shortages of parts manufactured in Asia, and some companies had to prepare for delays to components needed to keep production running.
The consequences were particularly severe in regions heavily dependent on imported fuel. Syria was forced to ration fuel after oil and petroleum product deliveries were delayed, affecting people's everyday lives.
The incident showed how deeply the daily lives of millions depend on structures thousands of kilometres away, and how invisible dependencies become tangible only when something goes wrong. One ship, one route and just a few days of disruption were enough to affect commodity prices, industry, transport, energy security and ordinary lives in different parts of the world.
The Suez Canal blockage also showed that resilience does not depend solely on a system's size. The global economy has enormous resources, technology and extensive infrastructure, yet a single critical point can cause serious disruption. In this case, not all the ports, factories or means of transport failed at once. Blocking one strategic passage was enough for delays to spread through successive links in the supply chain.
The Suez Canal blockage is one of many examples. Others include disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz (2026), Europe's energy crisis following cuts in Russian gas supplies (2022), the food crisis linked to Russia's invasion of Ukraine (2022), the global semiconductor shortage (2020–2023), COVID-19 and disruptions to supplies of protective equipment and medical products (2020), floods in Thailand that disrupted industrial production (2011), and the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and their effects on global supply chains (2011)…
5. What Research and Practice Tell Us
Research and practice increasingly show that a system's resilience depends not only on its size and efficiency, but also on its capacity to act locally, the diversity of its sources and its ability to disconnect partially from larger infrastructure during a crisis.
Energy microgrids are a good example.
The U.S. Department of Energy describes microgrids as local energy systems that can operate both connected to the main grid and in “island mode” — independently of it during outages or emergencies. The DOE also notes that these arrangements can improve reliability, resilience, security and access to energy. [source]
This matters because a microgrid does not have to replace the entire energy system.
It serves a different purpose.
A microgrid can provide a local layer of protection. Under normal conditions, it can work with the larger grid. In a crisis, it can temporarily keep a community, neighbourhood, industrial facility, hospital, campus or critical infrastructure operating.
This shows that autonomy is not the opposite of cooperation.
It is a safeguard for it.
The same logic can apply beyond energy: to food, water, skills, education, production, communication, digital systems and the organisation of local communities.
We should also consider autonomy more broadly, in social as well as technical terms.
Through its Beyond GDP approach, the OECD stresses that assessments of progress should not be limited to gross domestic product. To understand whether public policies improve people's lives, we need to consider a broader range of economic, social and environmental outcomes. The OECD develops indicators covering the wellbeing of people, families, societies, future generations and the planet. [source]
This has a direct connection with autonomy.
If we measure progress only through economic growth, we may call a system successful because it is cheap and efficient, even if it is very fragile. If, instead, we consider security, wellbeing, health, social relationships and people's ability to cope in a crisis, autonomy becomes one of the conditions for meaningful progress.
The OECD also points out that GDP is an important measure of economic output, but leaves out many aspects of life that matter to people, including who benefits from growth and what is needed to sustain wellbeing in the future. [source]
Local autonomy, understood as a community's ability to meet some of its basic needs, is therefore not a luxury.
It is part of security, resilience and wellbeing.
6. The Essence of the Change
Moving from dependence to autonomy does not mean turning our backs on a global world.
Nor does it mean returning to isolation, or to self-sufficiency understood as producing everything ourselves.
The essence of the change is to create a social model in which larger systems can continue to operate, but people and local communities are not entirely dependent on them.
The aim is not for every community to produce everything for itself.
The aim is for communities to have a basic capacity to survive, respond and organise their lives when external systems fail.
Autonomy means having many sources instead of just one.
It means local skills instead of total dependence on outside experts.
It means being able to act instead of waiting to be rescued.
It means interdependence by choice, not by necessity.
The most resilient society is neither wholly dependent nor wholly isolated.
It can cooperate with others while retaining the ability to act independently in a crisis.
The aim, then, is not to break our connections.
It is to make sure those connections do not become chains.
If freedom means having a choice, are we truly free when our energy, food, money, security and basic needs depend on systems over which we have no control?
