Been reading Sapiens and the author argues that the Agricultural Revolution, one of the most significant events of our species, was bad for individual people and more bad than good for humans despite allowing bigger populations.
He argues that for the average person, farming required more work and was more dependent on weather and insects than hunting. That having fixed settlements made them vulnerable to stronger groups. That farming left less free time and led to more dependence on fewer plants. That plants lack nutrients compared to meat. That higher populations meant you knew fewer people as a percentage and more competition. That it led to pampered elites.
Of course, this is a simplification which leaves out the benefits of stability, industry, other causes of malnutrition, lick of being in a place with good hunting, the benefits of mixed hunting and agriculture, domesticating animals and other things. But it is an interesting debate. Is Harari right? Did the Agricultural Revolution cause more problems than profits?