I'm assuming you're referring primarily to my post. I made no attempt to romanticize: I pointed out that certain differences between the lifestyles of paleolithic humans and our own modern ones have negative health effects. This is not to imply that everything was perfect back then, or that modern life does not have its advantages.
In regards to those things which have been, indeed, well considered:
Average lifespan estimations are based on skeletal remains. They compare bone density and degeneration against the average level of degeneration in modern humans with age. Since, as noted, those ancient remains are typically of those who were not subjected to the dietary deficiencies associated with grain consumption and whose bodies were subjected to stresses that encourage high bone density from birth, we really have no idea if those estimates are accurate at all. There's no good reason to assume that their skeletal degeneration rates would be identical to ours, and logical thinking would suggest the otherwise.
Further, we're discussing average lifespans. That says nothing of maximum lifespan; skeletal remains of what appear to be elderly ancient humans are uncommon, but they are found nonetheless. Risks that we don't face today, such as predation by animals, starvation, and interaction with a topography that lacked guardrails and warning signs kept average lifespan down; they weren't getting old and creaky and dying in their beds at age 40. Average lifespan indicates nothing about their typical health during the time that they spent alive, but most remains suggest that that health would usually be characterized as "robust." If they managed to avoid being killed by external factors, their own bodies probably wouldn't take them out any earlier than ours do.
We're discussing physical health here, and if we want to achieve robust health not unlike theirs, there's no reason why we can't modify some aspects of modern life to facilitate that while keeping the niceties that allow our high average lifespans.
Living in huts filled with smoke was by no means a universal characteristic of pre-agricultural cultures. Obviously that would be detrimental to health. Sure, that was probably a feature of some cultures (and still is) but that's not what a few million years of evolution has developed our physiologies to endure, unlike walking long distances. Same with metalworking. They didn't have industrial smog to deal with or rivers laden with solvents and heavy metals; their surrounding environments were less toxic. If they chose to subject themselves to toxins of their own producing anyways, well, that seems to be a common human mistake.
Yes, illnesses that did occur were often very serious. However, they were nowhere near as prevalent as they are even now, thanks to lower population densities. Yes, modern germ theory was a revelation; but it was agriculture that allowed the population densities to allow the horrific health conditions that existed before modern medicine got rolling.
But yes, disease was there. And it's still here. It seems that we've traded fast killers like, say, dysentary, for slow killers like heart disease and cancer.
The ideal would be eliminating the modern factors that feed problems like heart disease and cancer while also enjoying modern medicine's ability to save us from what would have killed us in primitive cultures. Again, I have no interest in either romanticizing or demonizing either; just demonizing the specific factors that have a negative impact on health. Of course there's nothing inherently superior or inferior about an activity or food due to the time period it's associated with, but it is informative to look at the differences in each and how they relate to each other.