This is not about some value-laden speculation whether the humankind "should" have stayed hunter-gatherers or not (as if that sort of a question makes any sense whatsoever). It's about a simple question of facts: Were individual subsistence farmers on average less healthful than hunter-gatherers? The evidence seems to indicate that yes, they were.

I read the above-linked article. I saw a lot of assumption based upon weak links and correlation with assumed causation.

For example, height decreased post agriculture. Did that mean that agriculture didn't allow people to grow as tall, or did agriculture decrease selective pressure on being big?

Anthropology is not as rigorous as math, physics, chemistry, or even economics. Anyone talking condescendingly about things that are "well accepted within anthropology" from 10k or 100k years ago are way overselling the discipline.