As I read the article, I compare the author's world view to that of the "survivalists" and "preppers". The guys who stockpile food, water, ammo, etc. that they'll likely never use but might. They deliberately optimize for the 5% or 0.5%, rather than the 95%. They assume independence will eventually be needed (running water may one day be unavailable), where the author is willing to risk relying on inter-dependence (car rentals and hotels will always be available). The survivalists firmly espouse the "when I need it, it's there" point of view. I don't know if one view is right or wrong, but they are clearly opposite approaches to dealing with tail risk.