This book makes a strong case that the central driver of the neolithic age was a cultural transformation of humanity, not climate change or population pressure. Of course, a stable climate is a necessary precondition, but there were previous periods of favorable climates open to humans, too. And population pressure is simply a conjecture without empirical support. Given the incredibly low population density in this era, it seems more plausible that we are retrojecting a modern problem deep into the past. An additional reason why I'm not compelled by the demographic argument is that it took people many centuries to domesticate plants and animals-- it's not a switch you can turn on when your settlement feels crowded. It's a much longer term and deeply held commitment to faithfully carry out this project.
Cauvin points out that humans created settlements before the neolithic without practicing agriculture. Local populations certainly rose and declined many times without pushing them towards agriculture. Humans certainly had the cognitive ability to domesticate plants and animals for many millennia without doing so. Cauvin argues that it was changes in social and cultural conditions, something in the collective psychology of these people groups that led them to deliberately choose a way of living that departed so sharply from the lives of their predecessors.
Cauvin maintains that a major ideological change, "a revolution of symbols", is the principle driver of the transition to agriculture. Instead of being recipients of the natural cycles of the world, humans intervened to become active producers. The revolution was the idea that man could control his own destiny by controlling his food supply-- his role in nature and the cosmos was forever changed.
I think Cauvin's proposal of the widespread adoption of a mother goddess and bull cult is an over-interpretation of the archaeological evidence, but there is clearly a major transformation in the symbolism present at these ancient sites. I think the hardest thing to do would be to reconstruct the gods of a long-gone people, but one could surmise that ritual and symbolic activity of some sort could lead to major transformations in the material culture and physical manifestation of humans in their surrounding environment.
This interpretation brings into strong contrast the ideologies of researchers themselves. Some are certain that material conditions drive all of human history (just like any other species). Their interpretative framework is the combination of changing environmental conditions and the biological heritage of humans. Everything else is secondary. Obviously, this is much easier to quantify, model, extrapolate, and generalize. It sounds more "objective" and "scientific". I would call this the "natural history" model of understanding humanity.
Cauvin's interpretation fits in the category of what I would call "human history". It pays attention to variables that are mostly unique to humans-- agency, imagination, goals, rituals, art, aesthetics. Evolutionary psychologists and behavioral economists often claim that they can capture and quantify these variables, thereby bringing them into natural history. I think they can to some degree, but it also loses much in the process.
I think that human history and natural history both have a lot to contribute to understanding the past and our place in it. Both, at their best, place a high priority on empirical evidence, though they weight the different kinds of evidence differently. Both approaches also depend on theory, both explicit and implicit. I'm very leery of scholars claiming that one can supersede the other. To do so would be like gauging out your eyes because they give you different information that what you can glean from listening.