I believe the fallacy in your example is a specific form of a non sequitur, defined as:
An argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
Now, as pointed out by stoicfury, a non sequitur is merely an umbrella term encompassing many logical fallacies. The term you may be looking for is Ignoratio Elenchi, which is specifically:
The informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
Which is exactly what your example is: a long set of premises about the native people, all quite believable but irrelevant to the question of what is or is not "primitive" (which is itself only an implied argument - there is no explicit logical argument in the image). The argument in the list of "without" terms is that the native people do not have many of the problems of the industrialized world; this is true, but it only allows one to reach a conclusion along the lines of:
The native people do not have many of the problems we experience in the industrialized and modern world.
But, given the most relevant definition of primitive as:
Unaffected or little affected by civilizing influences; uncivilized; savage: primitive passions.
The premises do not allow one to argue that the natives are not primitive. The list of premises is entirely irrelevant to its conclusion, and so the argument contains the fallacy Ignoratio Elenchi. The only way the argument could avoid being fallacious is:
- If the definition of primitive could be the possession of all the attributes the image disowns (stress, bombs, etc.);
- If the natives truly do not have these attributes.
However, as you point out, 1 is not the case; those attributes are (by the general definition) irrelevant to what is or is not primitive. Thus, the argument does indeed contain a fallacy, an Ignoratio Elenchi.