I also am unaware how this relates to the above theory about how pre colonial Tasmanians had and then lost "tech like crops".
I do have a notion that metrics such as "superior" tend to be value judgements based on particular axioms .. some people feel that storing their nuts for winter, creating an industrial revolution, eliminating other life forms on the planet through expansion, and altering the atmosphere to be a superior approach.
Others seemingly enjoyed a particular quality of life for several tens of thousands of years by spending some time gathering food and most of the time telling stories.
Clearly different value systems are at play.
There's always some kind of scarcity everywhere, sure, but the key notion here is regular predictable extreme scarcity that can be planned for and hedged against with a considered amount of energy and advance preparation.
On that note, it is by the way theorized that the necessity to coordinate farming with the floods and other farmers is what kicked off civilisatory development.
And, as you note, an original challenge that predates human advance into the northern environments as glaciers retreated.
The great OG mathematical challenge for humans was the "fair" recurrent remarking of land plots following a flood - how to survey land area, and how to plan for and account for food surplus to last over food scarcity.
However this is as big as drought, if not larger. Not just insects, rodents, bird cyclictic overpopulation wiping out crops, but also fungus, bacteria, etc.
The world has starved more than once from such things, and the Egyptians had reverence for cats for a reason.
Around me there is not a constraint on the deer population, resources are plentiful for them and outside of hunting season there is little contesting the deer. Eventually the deer population grows enough that the lifeforms they share space with decide to, mm, contest their expansion, but there are places and periods in which populations can grow unconstrained for a while. I suppose I was making the point that humans maintaining a certain way of life for tens of thousands of years may have lived in a way where resources and rival tribes were not an issue, and hence, had little motivation to develop defensive weaponry / collect starvation rations for rainy days.
It's hardly a nuetral unbiased assessment when it's literally Europeans saying "who has two thumbs and superior culture" as they photograph themselves amongst a pile of dead indigenous people and ship a bunch of heads home to pickle for the phrenologists.
And dying of basic infections, having to birth 10 children so 2 survive to adulthood among other amazing perks of avoiding technological progress.
Of course the Canary Islands were settled by "civilized" people.
No amount of "colonizers bad" is gonna get away from those. Health care has improved tremendously due to technological advances and if you like preventing misery, singing songs and picking berries isn't the way.
The men also took weapons and went to the tribes nearby and killed the men there, and ...
This has always been a violent species. (Not saying the other great apes are (were) any better.)
Previously the historians thought the stone age was peaceful, singing songs telling stories etc. And oh so much spare time. They know better nowadays.
Check out the Yanomami, or read about viking raids or Shaka Zulu. Humans don't just sit around and tell stories. They reproduce, become more and more, and ...
Afaik agriculture never made it to Australia (at least not in any sort of large scale) before the western invasion, let alone to Tasmania.
The tipping point where the use of labour and soil to create surlus labour, which is then used to conquer more soil is why agriculture led to a "culture" or "civilisation"(according to 19th century hisorians IIRC).
19th century hisorians argued (I think) that superior societies had superior technology, which made them even more superior. If anything, I think modern academics are too concerned about refuting the premise that Western civilisation ended up with superior technology, rather than simply accepting that they did (in most ways) but that this didn't always make them morally superior.