Reading Nina's review made me think of my reactions to this book. I think Christopher Ryan set it out almost like a dialectic, with the hunter/forager culture as thesis for Homo Sapiens sapiens, and the settled agricultural NPP civilization as almost an antithesis, (with organized monotheistic religion as a support for that culture). And then he gives hints at possible synthesis.
If we're "hard wired" for cooperation and sharing, I think there is still plenty of that to be found, but maybe our "progress" does work against it's full expression. There probably won't be any mass movement of small communities to live off the grid in remote locations. But if a crystallized picture of what we lost can lead to some reclaiming, that would help us and our planet.
I'm guessing that Ryan sees Homo Sapiens Sapiens as inherently inclined to seek a deeper reality than just our sensate existence. Early man may have found this in personal experience with psychoactive natural substances, rather than through an organized set of beliefs. That's where I see the connection with that part of the book.

Wait a minute...I just tried to make a loaf of Ezekiel bread. So I had to work with barley, a grain we domesticated/cultivated when we got civilized. If it weren't for barley we wouldn't have beer ("as we know it, Jim"). So is civilization really that bad?