That's not exactly the same thing. Back when humans were hunter gatherers there was a lot more forest and a lot more fauna to eat. You also had a tribe that stuck with you for life. Modern inventions weren't known back then so you wouldn't even know how to miss them. There was less work to do and the work you did had real meaning. It's completely possible that life was better for the average person back then.
You're really wrong about this. Pack hunters, such as wolves, lions, or early humans, do affect local prey populations in temporary ways, but they don't destroy ecosystems. Agriculture does destroy ecosystems.
In fact, you'll survive longer and live better because the commercial agriculture will be mass growing monocultures, gradually reducing their soil quality (eventually making the soil barren), and providing less variety of vitamins and nutrients.
The ability to consider contradictory propositions often leads to insights. No one is asking you to give up your television. Rather, one might suggest that considering previously unknown drawbacks of obviously beneficial customs might lead to further improvements in those customs.
Go in a forested area somewhere and live there. Let us know how a disaster the agro revolution and today's inventions are.
Yeah, life was all peaches back then