I just read a hypothesis from an anthropologist suggesting that the reason California’s indigenous tribes did not practice agriculture like eastern tribes, was due to the abundance of food they could forage year around. Oaks providing a significant part of their diet (which are plentiful in Mendocino) but also other nuts, berries, and tubers found throughout California.
So relative to our modern diet, maybe your point holds, but the California Floristic Province has plenty of plants to sustain humans. IIRC, the indigenous population density was some of the highest in the world.
That's also my understanding. I do wonder if that's a bit of a misunderstanding about not practicing agriculture, though. They did practice forest management with intentional burns. I'm pretty interested in traditional English forest management, and reducing brush and decreasing canopy increased the amount of forest "products" available to people, from building materials (basketry, hut materials, etc) to increased yields from under story vegetation.
It's a bit of a digression, but it's a subject I find interesting and rarely pops up in hacker news. :)
I thought a lot of that is acorns (that need a lot of preparation) and fish, not so much random food growing around the redwoods you could just pick and eat?
(Lived in the area for a long time, but not an expert at all). Did the anthropologist provide any details? I'd love to read their work
The Dawn of Everything has an interesting take on this - they didn't practice agriculture because they wanted to differentiate themselves from other cultures in the area.
So relative to our modern diet, maybe your point holds, but the California Floristic Province has plenty of plants to sustain humans. IIRC, the indigenous population density was some of the highest in the world.