Its irrelevant if you can provide for yourself. The ecosystem cannot support 9 billion Hunter gatherers - period. Subsistence level agriculture is also wildly inefficient and so again: the ecosystem cannot support it.
A hunter-gatherer dropped into a metropolis where all the logistics has suddenly failed would be as dead as everybody else.
> Its irrelevant if you can provide for yourself. The ecosystem cannot support 9 billion Hunter gatherers - period.
I didn’t suggest that it could, but the number that it can support is certainly more than zero. If that’s the only choice in a hypothetical scenario where global infrastructure goes kablooey, then people who can figure out how to provide for themselves will outlive those who can’t. From there it’s natural selection.
Whether you survive is going to be almost entirely determined by factors not in your control and an obtainable skillset is statistically insignificant. The one critical skill is the one people discount almost immediately: social.
You're statistically likely to simply be stuck in collapsing logistics system alongside everyone else: whether you can kill and dress your own rabbit doesn't matter because their aren't any.
So where you live is out of your control? The US has a ton of great hunting, your take might be more true in cities but the rats and pigeons will still be around. People still need to know how to find and purify water, how to make shelter and fire.
A hunter-gatherer dropped into a metropolis where all the logistics has suddenly failed would be as dead as everybody else.