I've gone through the same thought process although I'm the opposite of a Rousseau fan. I keep running aground on the problem of why large "easy" animals were hunted to extinction only in certain parts of the world. The "pissed-off" elephant theory doesn't reverberate with me: I presume mastadons got "pissed-off" too.
Maybe Clovis hunters were simply more efficient as killers than hunters in other parts of the world like Africa and India, etc., where large mammals survived. But that doesn't seem to fit with the evidence, particularly in places like Australia. The theory that massive human-set fires were used in Oz to destroy the large mammals has been floated but I have nagging questions about that as well. More modern Amerinds used fire in their hunting but at the time of Lewis and Clark (see Journals) there were still plenty of buffalo left.
What's wrong with considering whatever evidence Firestone has to offer?
Nothing at all, but as a confirmed sceptic, I'm a fan of Occam's Razor.