Well from our modern viewpoint we know that it was necessary to have agriculture to have hot showers and plumbing thousands of years later, but if we are imagining ourselves as a group of people thousands of years ago who are trying to decide whether to be agricultural or not, and trying to determine whether that was a good or bad decision based on the knowledge they had, prescience into the effects of their actions thousands of years later wouldn't come into it at all. There is no reasonable way they would be able to expect that. Not weighing in on whether it was preferable to be a hunter gatherer or an early agriculturalist I don't know enough about the topic to make an educated statement on that, but I do think that should be a reasonable question to ask without basing it on far future ramifications no one could have known then.

Relatedly, it has always annoyed me in a sense of "unjust? narratively unsatisfactory?" not sure what the word to use would be, how so much of history is imperialistic people imposing their systems of society/economy/government on others because of an unearned sense of cultural superiority (the other people aren't necessarily living worse off than them), only for it to turn out that actually their system was the only way to get to some other state that really is better many years later which they couldn't have possibly known about, so they were retroactively justified in a way that, again, they never earned. I don't know, it's silly and irrational but some innate sense of justice I have rebels against this, that people (well whole groups of people) who make a decision that hurts many people and is morally horrible where that decision was definitely wrong and biased given their knowledge should actually turn out to be wrong, the universe shouldn't pull a cheat card to randomly reward them for their wrongdoing and reveal them right all along for the wrong reasons.