>they live in pretty poor conditions in a very harsh environment; high altitude barren mountains.
But isn't that just the Peruvian mountains? If your statement was supposed to be relative ("there are good conditions in <x>") then I'm not sure what you expect.
If it was supposed to be absolute, then you're correct but stating something that hasn't changed since long before humans started living in the area is hardly worthwhile.
I understood the whole statement to mean that both the physical environment of the mountains and the conditions for living in them (for both alpacas and people) are difficult.
As in, "the mountains are a harsh environment and people are living in poor conditions upon them" which would suggest an even more limited set of circumstances than being just poor somewhere else or just on those mountains but not having to depend on them for everyday living.
But isn't that just the Peruvian mountains? If your statement was supposed to be relative ("there are good conditions in <x>") then I'm not sure what you expect.
If it was supposed to be absolute, then you're correct but stating something that hasn't changed since long before humans started living in the area is hardly worthwhile.