I'm willing to bet most people on here have never actually experienced living with decentralized infrastructure, and only have an abstract understanding of what it entails. I live on the edge of a state forest where the only centralized service we have is electricity (we still have solar). We have gas bottles for cooking and hot water, and when one runs out we switch it over and get it replaced. For sewerage we get the septic tank pumped, and for water we collect rainwater. If we have a dry year or use too much, we have to pay for water cartage. If the pump goes down, I'm either fixing it myself or paying someone else to fix it on short notice.

Now, I chose this and it's how I grew up, so I wouldn't have it any other way. But the beauty of centralized systems is that they offset these burdens to an authority that handles all of that for you. If I were unable to pay for a new pump, well, I would have no water. A centralized system paid for by taxes guarantees that everyone will always have access to water under fairly mild conditions.

The failure of centralized systems and people resorting to locally decentralized solutions isn't indicative of decentralized solutions being better, but more a failure of governance and bureaucracy. I mean, there's a reason we all moved from decentralized systems (like getting water from a well) to centralized systems in the first place. That's not to say that decentralized anything doesn't also have advantages, only that the distinction really matters, and people should be sure of what it is they're advocating for when they want to decentralize infrastructure like electricity and water that are vital for survival.

What? Nobody is saying that decentralized systems can't have centralized backups, or that you can't have a hybrid system. Your whole comment is predicated on a false dichotomy.