Breaking Up with Global Supply Chains: It's Not You, It's My Self-Sufficient Agro-Cabinet From Global Dependency to Backyard Sovereignty: Why Your Kitchen Garden Might Save Civilization - it's a path to freedom and security

I always have some idea, or hypothesis, within which I think about almost everything else. Like a kind of overarching theme, some kind of background philosophical direction.
And right now it's the theme of "Self Sufficiency", on all levels.
This is how I explain it to myself. It started with the advancement of countries that at some point broke out of the Middle Ages and rushed forward to build a better world. And the progress was huge, they were able to radically overtake the rest in terms of technology, standard of living, nutrition, happiness, laws, health, etc. But when the gap between them and the rest of the world became too big as it seemed to them, there was a predicament. When life improves, it is very difficult to motivate your children to continue to do the same. It undercuts the element of eagerness. Of course, we are still far away from utopia and ideal life, so of course everything has not completely converged, but the feeling of danger from the lagging world has somehow passed. But the developed countries have not completed their Garden of Eden. The main thing they lacked was self-sufficiency. It was easier and "more profitable" to take resources, both natural and labor, outside these developed oases. As a result, after some time, some of the savaged resource providers realized that the developed ones depended on them and eventually learned to exploit it.
Now it's starting to aggravate. And the way out, of course, is to develop your own countries to the full extent. Dealing with the whole world around, it can and should be done, but the priority should be the completion of development at home. Production of energy, food, goods and services should be one's own. You do not have to do everything yourself, but you have to be able to do it. And do a lot, then you can exchange with other developed neighbors to increase variety.
First of all, as long as the development is not done, it is immoral to teach others how to live. And it will always work badly. Secondly, when the development will be brought to a higher level, the danger from the savages will be greatly reduced, just as England was not dangerous at home from, for example, the Indians of America.
All countries are of course different and each country has its own difficulties with the completion and development of its societies. In the USA, for example, there are big problems with healthcare, education, economic disparity of society, outdated election system, corruption, law and order enforcement and many other aspects of life. Self-sufficiency in the economy would cure most of these deficiencies. Largely because if self-sufficiency is elevated to become one of the main goals, we will have to change a lot of things.
But I am talking not only about self-sufficiency of the economy at the level of countries. The path to the future also lies in the self-sufficiency of the basic nuclei of society. Each well-developed household can grow its own food, produce its own energy, have independent ways of communication and be sovereign in many other aspects of production, independent of large businesses and even more so of governments. Here, of course, technically we are not at that level yet, but this is where we need to make an effort.
Imagine that, for example, when the energy produced by your own, say solar panels, water is collected and purified. Groceries you grow yourself. In the kitchen there is a huge machine like an agro-cabinet. It grows a variety of enhanced produce. Richer in vitamins and containing all the necessary nutrients, it grows quickly and it's all automated. Waste is recycled and fed back into the system. Clothing and miscellaneous household items can be manufactured too, with automation, or printing, it doesn't matter. Communication is peer-to-peer and in addition via satellites, from different competing operators. If push comes to shove, you can lock yourself in and live, if necessary, for years. It doesn't mean there's no global network, it doesn't mean everyone is isolated. It means that everyone can be independent of others and interact not by necessity but by preference.
Countries of such a level will become so much out-of-reach again that they won't need and won't be afraid of savages. Then more and more countries and people will aspire to become like that and they will not need to be convinced, it will be obvious to the vast majority.
Self-sufficiency doesn't have to mean isolation or protectionism - it can coexist with global trade and competition. The key difference is that countries and communities would engage in global markets from a position of strength and choice rather than necessity or vulnerability.
The role of AI in this future is particularly interesting - it could optimize these systems, making small-scale production more efficient and competitive with large industrial operations. This technological convergence might enable even smaller communities to achieve levels of productivity that previously required massive economies of scale.
What this creates is resilience without isolation - participating in global trade for variety, efficiency, and mutual benefit while maintaining the ability to withstand supply chain disruptions or external pressures.