Your statement is equally hyperbolic and unthinking.
For one, "they managed the entirety of Australia" implies uniformity and political unity which did not exist. Australia is huge. Some unlucky groups in the interior had to dig ten feet deep to get water, and travel between wells frequently while waiting for them to refill. And keep their locations a closely-guarded secret, because their lives depended on it. I wouldn't call that "easily-obtained subsistence."
In general, the notion that hunter gatherers have an easier time procuring food than completely sedentary farmers is very much up for debate.
Your assertion that Americans are "philosophically naive" compared to indigenous australians is also... unscientific, to say the least.
We should absolutely reject colonialist value judgements like those found in the grandparent, however, let's not substitute them for an equally simplistic noble savage narrative.
For one, "they managed the entirety of Australia" implies uniformity and political unity which did not exist. Australia is huge. Some unlucky groups in the interior had to dig ten feet deep to get water, and travel between wells frequently while waiting for them to refill. And keep their locations a closely-guarded secret, because their lives depended on it. I wouldn't call that "easily-obtained subsistence."
In general, the notion that hunter gatherers have an easier time procuring food than completely sedentary farmers is very much up for debate.
Your assertion that Americans are "philosophically naive" compared to indigenous australians is also... unscientific, to say the least.
We should absolutely reject colonialist value judgements like those found in the grandparent, however, let's not substitute them for an equally simplistic noble savage narrative.