From a hard science perspective, an agrarian subsistence lifestyle isn't a "forever" trap, or at least, doesn't have to be. The key difference between "us" in the "now" and our distant agrarian ancestors is insight. We know about mathematics, physics, engineering, and all the artifacts we could make, from plows to looms to cars, airplanes, and computers. Without the insight we now have, our ancestors had to learn and discover, proceeding in small incremental steps without really understanding where those steps could or would ultimately lead. Knowing what our modern world looks like, and knowing how it works, the process our ancestors followed could largely be "short-circuited". Obviously, technology would have to be built up - you'd have to do some "re-learning" of techniques so you could make ceramics, steel, and glass before moving on to building steam engines and electric generators, refining fuels and making plastics, growing crystals and making computer chips. But, knowing the road map makes it faster and easier to get to your destination.
All this is to say that having unlimited resources to sustain life doesn't lock you into a primitive lifestyle, assuming there are also resources to feed a technological evolution. I would think that it was not an overlooked aspect of the story so much as an aspect that didn't require exposition.