I am not an economist but I have taught AP US History for over 20 years and have taken numerous courses on economic history.

I don't disagree with your assessment overall. My concern is that there is also a counternarrative.

The first textile mills created dams and canal systems that blocked salmon and other fish runs. People who enjoyed the bounty of those were locked out.

In Concord, MA the raising of the dams flooded out previously valuable meadowlands. (See the work of Brian Donahue for details.)

Many of the newly created jobs in coal mining and mill work were dangerous and had very low pay.

My family has a summer place in the Adirondacks where a large number of Amish have begun settling. They all work very hard, but most of them seem prosperous and content with their lives, despite the lack of modern amenities.

I worry about any economic argument that externalizes the ecological damage or loss of human dignity. Many European states are measuring Gross National Happiness as well as Gross National Product.

I think the article was including some of these questions.

I would most recommend Wendell Berry for his contrarian view of modern economics. I am also a big fan of Thoreau.