Recently got AskTom on how you push new rule sets on a local level.

First thought: System Perturbations, or shocks to the system, are great catalyst. Right demonstrative one, like 9/11 or Katrina, pushes people to reset rule sets locally in a big way.

in this process of change, security always leads,as in fear. Resilience is just civilian for robustness (an old military term for the same thing).

So you get the System Perturbation, and the locals come together to protect themselves, gathering whatever constitutes the "pitchforks" of their age. If they reach for serious resilience, then what they end up building is so much more than a disaster response plan, it's a profound understanding of their environemnt in all its complexity and a networking of capabilities and mechanisms that creates a lasting good, easily translated into economic competitive advantage (e.g., I want a wireless communication network in my city, and what I create for that is a city-wide Wi-Fi that makes my city hugely competitive across a range of economic sectors). Point being, that's just a microcosmic version of what DoD did with the Internet (secure comms in nuclear war was original goal of DARPAnet).

This logic train triggered by the question referenced above and the following email from TM Lutas (Flit the blogger).

Me, I'm just arbitraging the concepts in the question-answer dynamic.

Here's Lutas' email:

A thought on resilience:

PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) has something called the Obje framework. This is something that is currently focused on resilient technology capability sharing. There is no reason that the same principles couldn't be extended to resilient capability sharing in disaster situations. All you're really doing is widening out the number of capabilities that are defined in the framework . . .