As a lifelong (albeit young) student of world / ancient history, I have arrived at the conclusion that, (according to the most basic of ethics, subjectivism notwithstanding) humanity is at its best in a society absent of centralized government, technological advancement, property ownership, and, most importantly, focused on the betterment of the "tribe" so to speak. I realize this is a very radical, long-term, and frankly implausible goal. I do, however, truly believe that we can do it. That being said, the topic of this debate is the practicality (how well it would work) and ethicality (is it ethical?) of such a system, NOT about the feasibilty (how likely it is to ever "take") or applcability (how important it is to even be discussing it). Thank you so much for reading, and I do hope that everyone participating in this debate will walk away with new understanding!
On the contrary, I believe that the societal advancements made in the last five thousand years have been almost entirely positive, unless you're fond of living in a hovel with rotten teeth dying at thirty from preventable illnesses.
I'll deconstruct your argument piece by piece, if I may.
1. fond of
Our desires and wants are based upon expectations. If one was born into such a system, one would be entirely used to the expectations of short life and substandard health. However,
living in a hovel
This is a misconception of tribal living. As an expirement, I once spent an entire month outside in a tent. I ate unprocessed, organic foods, and purified water with charcoal and sand. When the month was over, I was only disappointed because I had to go back to living indoors, due to school and other things.
3. rotten teeth
This is actually, in general, a product of our society, rather than a problem fixed by it. Our teeth decay due to sexual selection taking priority over natural selection in that regard (that is to say, the people who have dental hygiene (a modern developement) reproduce, i.e. sexual selection, rather than those who have strong dental genetics i.e. natural selection). It should also be noted that our food supply is ripe with starches and acids and every other manner of horrible thing making our teeth decay.
I have little to refute the fact that the life expectancy has gone up, but here is where philosophy enters into our debate. Is there really a difference between living life arbitrarily for eighty years and being forced by morbid knowledge to live it to the fullest for thirty. I can only cite common sense to tell you that when you know you only have a short amount of time to do something you put out maximum effort to get it accomplished. When given a longer time to complete a task, humans tend to procrastinate. It stands to reason, then, that the same should extend to life as a whole. The second question on the below citation illustrates this point beautifully.
Another fallacy about tribal times. Many of our modern illnesses simply did not exist in ancient times. With the introduction of modern medicine, we have lost immunity by the Lamarckian concept of loss from disuse while simultaneously helping bacteria and viruses grow stronger due to the Darwinian concept of natural selection, not to mention all of the horrid biological warfare in ancient history and on the horizon. So, in summation, modern medicine has hurt more than it's helped as far as disease goes.