>Having an abundance of natural resources that are easily accessible at a low tech level seems like it's a very large precondition to making this work

Disagree, "civilized" societies have vast surpluses of the resources needed for survival (Level 1 and 2 of Maslows Hierarchy) compared to tribal societies, although those resources may not be distributed properly -- which is indicative of that which we truly lack: community belongingness and love (Level 3 of Maslows Hierarchy).

"Civilized" societies don't have more natural resources available, they are just able to access a much, much higher portion of the available resources.

In the context of this conversation, that's a distinction without a difference.

Civilized societies are definitely able to produce more food, and shelter at scale using industrial techniques.

This may be true now, but it's only been very, very recently in history that food surpluses are a certainty.

Until a century ago, frequent crop failures, disease, and other ailments were a hallmark of sedentary societies.

I think the original criteria was "easily accessible at a low tech level". Civilized societies are efficient and can access difficult-to-reach resources. It seems the OP's argument is that to be a tribal society you need easier-to-access resources, resources that are now controlled by the civilized society.

You're right, I think I misread their meaning. Even though still now that I understand it, tribes still exist across the world living in extremely inhospitable environments with very scarce resources, and they still manage to have much stronger community ties than many civilized socieities.

Food and shelter aren't natural resources. They are things that you produce using natural resources.

"Civilized" societies use far less land per person to produce food.

Unless you are arguing that we do not have enough resources to produce the food/shelter required to live, not sure what your point is.