Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake (4th time)

I have decided for this debate to have a different approach, so all the points and things I said in my prior debates will be irrelevant. To be able to understand why a change between hunting and gathering to an agricultural lifestyle occurred, we must look at all of the problems hunter and gathers had. What I believe to be the biggest issue for hunter and gathers back in the pre-historic time was the issue of food preservation and obtainment of food. Even with modern technology, fresh meat cannot be stored for long periods of time. In part, domestication of livestock and herding developed because it was a ready supply of fresh meat. This being said, why didn't hunters resort to herding (some did), but the biggest question about this is, why was it that difficult for the hunters to kill the prey? There are two reasons why it was/became hard for hunters to kill their prey. The first of the two reasons is that being around in prehistoric times, the technology of superior weapons was non-existing. Hunters would use tools made of bone and rocks (obsidian in some places) that they found. Not until much later did the technological advancements in metallurgy, such as use of bronze then iron, occur. When farmers where still the minority, and hunter and gathers made up that majority of the population, they used the same type of tools to farm, as the hunters used to kill their prey. It is outlandish to say that hunter and gathers switch to agriculture due to the lack of ability to innovate new tools and strategies for hunting. Hunters and farmers possessed the same type of technologies and advancements in metallurgy did not occur completely because of the development of agriculture. If humans did not turn to agriculture, or even discover it, and we continued to be hunters and gathers, I believe that they would, over time, develop and improve technologies, with enough time, the issues of food preservation and hunting abilities would have improved, most likely, even better technologies than today would have existed. The seconds reason that obtaining food for hunters was that once agriculture took off, there was competition, both between hunters and farmers over land, and between farmers and wild game over habitat. Agriculture and hunting could not co-exist; farming took up to much space, and destroyed the wild habitat of the game that hunters needed in order to survive. By the time agriculture was accepted, hunters were forced to switch, because the amount of game was far less than be for the agricultural transition. Hunters did not switch because they wanted to, they were forced to by farmers in order to survive. Only twenty-nine present of the Earth is land. You can't farm of water, but there are still fish that can be caught. The species (other than humans) all have adapted to a certain habitat. Almost everywhere there is land, there is a habitat for living creatures. It may sound like farming produces more food, but if you look at it, it doesn't. There is edible food that grows in the wild, and populations of mammals live in these habitats. There was a significant amount of food ready for the taking already in existence before the development of agriculture, and for the most part, all you have to do if find it and pick it. One square mile of wildlife could feed more people a healthy, varied diet, than one square mile of farmland could feed people and unvaried, unhealthy diet. If this is true, then agriculture makes no sense. Some people believe that agriculture was preferred to hunting and gathering because it was less work and more reliable, which seems to be the biggest misconception. Farming required hard work preparing the field, planting, harvesting, and everything else you had to do. Sometimes farms did not produce enough, did not grow, or where destroyed. If this happened, there was not enough food, and the farmer starved and died. Hunting and gathering obtained food in two ways; obviously hunting, and gathering, (hence the name). If the male hunters left for the day to go on the hunt, the women when out in search for will berries, fruits, nuts, etc. Often, the hunters did not bring back a large kill, or even any, this does not mean they died, the women had gathered enough food and they did not starve. Sometimes, they would come across an area where there was no wild food, but if the men were successful in hunting, they would not starve either. If one thing goes wrong in farming, farmers would often starve, so why did people begin to turn to agriculture if it was LESS reliable and required more work? I will save the rest of my argument for the next rounds, along with my rebuttal.