The author seems to act as if primitive man faced an equal choice: agriculture, or hunting and gathering. He says they chose the latter because it's easier, given the larger land availability.

This is only half the equation: domesticating today's agricultural products took tens of thousands of years. And throughout the interim, that process of learning must have gotten broken dozens of times until it finally resulted in something resembling the plants which can sustain a civilization. Normal wild wheat, for example, is unharvestable. Its seeds just drift away into the wind.

I'm surprised he ignores this, but it's a pretty glaring flaw in his argument.