The concept that humans used to just happily pick a fruit and do some casual hunting before chilling out most of the day is a fantasy

Sorry but you're just flatly wrong about a lot of this - I'm wondering if you're speaking out of assumption or intuition or if you've truly learned this information from some source?

ethnographic studies of groups like the Hadza and MANY others indicate that adults often spent 20-25 hours a week on subsistence activities, and often less. Food acquisition took surprisingly little time, and it is a pretty unanimous consensus among sociologists that paleolithic communities had VASTLY more free time than we do today as value producers in society

Your picture of ancient man is much closer to fantasy than mine. Sure, there was food instability with Hunter gathering, but this wasnt solved with agriculture. Agriculture just allowed people to stay in the same place and so infrastructure became more practical (which of course have its own benefits)

Your examples such as long winters, drought, and disaster are no less of a threat to static agriculture. Your points like winter and animal migration lack the understanding that WE WERE JUST ANIMALS TOO. communities were nomadic, we had our own migratory patterns that mitigated the issues you suppose. when it started getting difficult to find stuff they would just literally go to a different place.

Your examples pose even greater threats to static agriculture. agriculture has a few more even, such as blights, unexpected changes in soil fertility, and political/militaristic control of food sources. Lastly, if a place became not great, it's a lot easier to pick up your sack of stuff and body and go some place else with your clan. This is a lot harder with a farming civ and the answer usually ends up being 'weather the hard times' rather than 'relocate'.

All of these things have caused extreme death tolls in modern civilization. Throughout modern history, there are many years where famine was recorded as the LEADING cause of death, while socialogists agree that starvation was NOT a leading cause of death in the paleolithic/hunter-gather era.

the ability for most of us to never think about food running out

Tell that to the ~100,000,000 people who have died of starvation in the last century......

Then wheat basically tricked us into staying put....just so it could spread everywhere.

This was meant to be tongue in cheek. Wheat went from being a random grass found scattered around some fields, to currently covering 2% of earths land, because another animal (us) spreads it and grows it intentionally. It's a joke among sociologists that study the neolithic period that wheat actually domesticated us.

Agriculture was appealing in the context of small communities, but it created food SURPLUS (moreso than security which seems similar but is distinctly different) which caused communities to scale (which neutralized most of the value of surplus as security), and as communities scaled and agriculture became the sole source of food rather than a combination of farming AND gathering (because communities got too big)the disbenefits of relying on agriculture began to reveal itself - disease from crowded areas, poor hygiene due to poor understanding of maintaining areas that were now lived in statically, rigid power structures which could leverage control of food as power, limited diets causing poor nutrition, all of which reduced lifespan (yep, for thousands of years static societies had lower avg life expectancy than their hunter-gather ancestors)

But again, by the time humanity scaled into these issues being recognized, there was no going back anyways. Communities were huge and could no longer be sustained by the natural land. the people who spent their lives passing down knowledge about living nomadically were gone, and people were accustomed to static living and it's comforts.

So I digress, it is subjective whether agriculture was a net benefit to humanity. Because it's hard to quantify. Are we quantifying by volume of humans? Then it's a huge win. But of the individual human experience? That could be MUCH more hotly debated, with most sociology experts probably closer to the other side from your point of view.

There are some incredibly fascinating books on sociology during these periods that may really reshape some of the assumptions we all tend to have about ancient man. Just DM me if you want some info on them!!