I don't think you understand what 10,000 years ago looks like. These weren't rich European kings, they were leaders of tribes on the cusp of discovering agriculture. In Europe, they lived in caves and tents and hunted with sharp rocks -- they arguably had it worse even than some of the other prehistoric groups in the Middle East and parts of Asia.

Eating freshly cooked meat from a domesticated or game animal is miles better than a rotting piece of garbage in a dumpster sitting in the hot sun.

I don't think we're understanding how filthy dumpsters are and how our bodies are not engineered to handle the types of bacteria that grow in those circumstances or just how dangerous and unhealthy urban areas are for the homeless. Even days old dried meat is going to be healthier, tastier, and safer to eat that whatever you find in a dumpster. Opening a dumpster and seeing a freshly cooked steak that has only one bite out of it is pure Hollywood bullshit. Its a major health risk to eat what you find in garbage cans. Hunting and gathering is infinitely better and safer.

You are romanticizing the hunter-gatherer past. Constantly being on the verge of starvation, eating under-ripe fruit, and scavenging rotten meat off week-old corpses was not a good or 'healthy' life.

You may be giving hunter-gatherers too little credit. I think erring on the opposite side of romanticizing is just as bad and risks dehumanizing them.

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

"Ian Hodder of Stanford University said, "Göbekli Tepe changes everything". It shows that the erection of monumental complexes was within the capacities of hunter-gatherers and not only of sedentary farming communities as had been previously assumed."

That doesn't look like the work of people perpetually on the verge of starvation.

Another example is from the contemporary historical accounts and depictions of early Europeans in North America. Plain Indians seemed to have been in very good health. They were taller, had a more varied diet, were in better physical shape, and enjoyed longer lives (save accidents/violence).

I'm not personally familiar with the anthropological evidence, but I strongly, strongly doubt that 'constant verge of starvation' accurately characterizes even a small percentage of the past reality.

Constant verge of starvation is a very accurate characterization of the reality of the past. Until the 20th century, economists almost universally used population growth and decline as a measure of agricultural (and overall) productivity, because people would have as many children as they could feed. This measure only works if you are on the verge of famine. A quick glance at anthropological evidence will show you that cultures which developed (and advanced) agriculture had much higher population densities; this was not a lifestyle choice, it was a sign that they could feed more people than the hunter-gatherers. Other resources (such as salt and water) also played a part in what population size could be supported, but efficiency of food production was the predominant occupation and concern up until very recently.

The hunter-gatherers were not awash in delicious artisanal wild venison jerky.

Exactly! I remember reading firsthand accounts from, even 150 years ago, in the US, like Little House on the Prairie, and they all seemed to think it was pretty normal to just "not have food" sometimes. Many many pages were devoted to discussing how long food would last, what they would do when food ran out, how fantastic it was that someone saved the day by killing a food, etc. And they weren't even poor by the standards and culture of the day! They had incredibly advanced (relatively speaking) technology, specialization, and societal support!

I've been downvoted a ton in this thread, but I just think there's so much delusion here about the lifestyle and living standards of prehistoric man...

Being on a constant verge of starvation has been very much the norm through most of history, which is attested by this list of major famines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

Bear in mind these are just the most famous famines, there were constant localised famines going on all the time.

Famines were certainly common and devastating. I recommend Braudel's The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization & Capitalism: 15th-18th Century: Volume 1:

"Famine recurred to insistently for centuries on end that it became incorporated into man's biological regime and built into his daily life. Dearth and penury were continual, and familiar, even in Europe, despite its privileged position... It could not have been otherwise. Cereal yields were poor; two consecutive bad harvests spelt disaster... France, by any standards a privileged country, is reckoned to have experienced 10 general (nation-wide) famines during the tenth century: 26 in the 11th... 13 in the sixteenth; 11 in the seventeenth, and 16 in the eighteenth."

"For when they are extreme, demographic increases lead to a deterioration in the standard of living; they enlarge the always horrifying total of the underfed, poor, and uprooted. A balance between mouths to be fed and the difficulties of feeding them, between manpower and jobs, is re-established by epidemics and famines... these extremely crude adjustments were the predominant feature of the centuries of the ancien régime."

Contrast this with Germany taking over a million migrants in during 2015, with none starving. How can agriculture be so much different now to be able to support something like this? Crop yields are much greater now due to artificial selection and technology:

"From the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, the results were disappointing. For every grain sown, the harvest was usually no more than five and sometimes less. As the grain required for the next sowing had to be deducted, four grains were therefore produced for consumption from every one sown..." In Poland, Hungary and Slovakia between 1550 and 1650, yields were between 2 or 4 grains per 1! For 10% of Polish harvests, yields were below 2 to 1!

Things have improved greatly: England 1200-49: 3.7 for 1 England 1750-1820:

...10.6 grains for 1 planted!

And growth over the last century truly means we don't understand how drastically easier it is to grow food now. In Missouri, bushels per acre increased from about 10 in 1915 to about 55 in 2015! (src = http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/WheatYields_MO.jpg)

72 percent of the American workforce was in farming was 72 percent in 1820. (src = http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/20/us/farm-population-lowest-...) Now it seems to be between 1-2 percent.

Agreed. In particular, the social support for physical/mental disabilities that often fuel homelessness was probably nonexistent then. And yes, it's fair to scoff at the social support when comparing nations among one another at the present. But the trend among all of them at present is light years ahead of what it was 10000 years ago.