Your question might be a duplicate...the first paragraph of my reply is virtually identical to a reply I posted to another question recently, though I can't remember what it was.
Your question evokes the timeless debate made famous by Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau had a very romanticized view of Nature, while Hobbes thought people living in their natural state had short, brutish lives.
I'm with Rousseau - my connection with Earth is spiritual. But my view can be shattered with a simple thought experiment:
Imagine if you had a chance to go back in time 100,000 years and live on an unspoiled planet. The catch: You can't take any modern technology with you.
Could you live without electricity, music or modern health care? I couldn't.
So, for me, it comes down to a question of balance. Thank God for electricity and modern health science, but do we really have to bathe ourselves in pollution and climate change, driving the polar bear and countless other creatures to extinction?
Your question focuses largely on happiness. That is largely a product of a person's life experience. A person who was born before the discovery of electricity was probably perfectly happy without it. But those of us who are used to electricity couldn't live without it.
Vice versa, a person who lives on a remote tropical island with a small population might be shocked by the urban wilderness of New York City or Seattle's homeless camps.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that things are getting worse. The simple knowledge that our lives are being impacted by climate change and that we could actually wipe ourselves out with biochemical weapons can't make people happier. And if the unthinkable ever happens, I doubt that the survivors are going to be terribly happy.
In the meantime, people can also quibble about the definition of "civilization" and "progress." In fact, I think another important issue of relevance to this discussion is population.
It can be argued that larger cities can support more cultural activities, but they come with a high price tag. And any culture that's exported by NYC and Seattle is dwarfed by the monumental piles of pollution and corruption they dump on the world.
Some "naturalists" have observed that Nature works in cycles. Think about the hydrologic cycle, for example, with snow falling on mountains, then melting into streams that flow into the sea, where evaporation returns the water molecules to the atmosphere.
However, human population growth, change and "progress" appear to be more linear. Human communities often don't renew themselves; they just get bigger and stinkier until they become little more than traps for the poor. The alternative is the classic boom-and-bust towns that turn into ghost towns, often marking ruined environments.
You commented on scientists studying happiness in simple societies. In fact, I believe such studies have been done, though perhaps not in great detail. It has certainly been noted that people in "primitive" societies often lead more leisurely lives than their urban working-stiff counterparts.
I'd like to see a study of this nature:
Imagine traveling around the world, visiting big cities, villages, primitive tribes and everything in between. At each destination, you seek out older people and ask them about the changes they've seen, at the same time asking if their lives are better.
The answers will, of course, be all over the map. However, I'd wager that the great majority long for the past - or at least for a more balanced life. There has to more to life than Google and Amazon.