I'm not sure the point is to stifle industrial development as much as it's to show we've built our society on several "facts" that might not be entirely accurate. Further I think the author is trying to say people in our society don't question these supposed facts and that society is worse off because of it.
In this case his point is that modern society takes hunter/gatherer cultures that still exist and tries to change them to agriculture based cultures without questioning whether it's best for them.
In your very reply you proved the second point. Let me lay it out...
- His central argument is against the assumption that agriculture is proven to be better than hunting and gathering. He showed evidence of hunter/gatherers spending less time acquiring food and getting a better balanced diet in spite of that.
- You replied that agriculture is great without giving any evidence to refute his argument. The fact that modern agriculture requires fewer people than it once did is only relevant to his point if you have numbers that say modern agriculture's time to acquire food has fallen below that of hunter/gatherers. Otherwise it's irrelevant. Plus you didn't even address the balanced diet argument.
So you've proven the author's main point in that you fell back on the assumption that agriculture automatically equals the best solution.