It's hard to assess, especially from our position, which set of challenges the human soul prefers. But there's an interesting point to be made, touched in both "Civilized to Death: The Price of Progress"[0] as well as "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity"[1] that no 'savage' has been interested in non-coercively joining an 'advanced' society, whereas there are plenty of examples of 'civilized' people choosing the 'savage' life. I don't think the choice is as clear cut as it would superficially seem.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Civilized-Death-What-Lost-Modernity/d... [1] https://www.amazon.com/-/en/David-Graeber/dp/0374157359

I came to recommend the same book! It's one of my favorite books of my life now - I think more people need to read this.

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374157357/thedawnofeveryt... or https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/...

As is usual, the issue is that 'it depends'.

Starvation and disease of course were primary concerns of prehistoric peoples and can be experienced by nearly all larger life forms.

Poverty really only came into existence once things like 'wealth' were invented. Those things only really came into being once people started to live in larger communities, though not exclusively food based ones. Places like the Chaco Canyon Culture show signs of 'wealth' (and therefore poverty), but only in it's early period, and then only kinda.

War is a bit of a funny one too, as it kinda depends on what we mean by war. Where is the demarcation between family feuds and true warfare?

The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity is a good read into the recent developments into the 198,000 years of human history BC.

https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/...