Anti-stress may be anti-hierarchy

 "We now see that the process of rank allocation" (among primates) "especially dominance contests, encourage the upward movement of those group members most most able to withstand stress and best equipped to impose stress on others, while those with the most difficulty handling stress, or the least interested in stressing others, move downward. Thus there is a natural sorting that places individuals who are comfortable with stress near the top of the hierarchy and those who are "nervous" at the bottom".

-Allan Mazur. Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. Pg 87. 2005.

It is interesting that the relatively egalitarian Semai people of rainforest Malaysia have long viewed causing stress as a form of unacceptable violence (or at least they may be highly sensitive to stress). The violent effects of stress have much more recently been confirmed by modern science (Robert Dentan. Overwhelming Terror. Love, fear, peace and violence among Semai of Malaysia. Pg 138. 2008). 

It may be this "taboo" on causing stress partly explains the relative equality found in Semai society, hierarchy may simply, and unintentionally, be prevented from developing in the process of avoiding stress (Robert Dentan & David Nicholls. Stress, equality and peacability among east Semai. A preliminary account. Paper presented at Annual meeting of America Anthropological Association, Montreal, Nov 2011). Although multiple factors are probably involved in maintaining their equality, perhaps most notably they appear to "outsource" hierarchical roles such as "law and order" and "boss" to the supernatural (as reported in similar "egalitarian" societies by Kirk Endicott in Peaceful Foragers: The Significance of the Batek and Moriori for the question of Innate Human Violence. War, Peace and Human Nature. Ed D Fry. 2013.)

So if a group is trying to encourage equality, treating stress as acceptable or desirable will probably be counterproductive. If a group is seeking to establish hierarchy (to maximize efficiency in a division of labor for instance) restrictions or "taboos" on stress are likely to interfere. Presumably the middle path between these extremes would have the widest appeal. 

This could also have implications for health policy in modern states, it is conceivable hierarchy, including the state itself, could inadvertently be restricted or prohibited in efforts to eliminate illness and fatalities from stress. 

It is also interesting that the Semai have not traditionally damaged the ecosystem they live in significantly. Lack of ability to get stressed may be a cause of environmental devastation among industrialized people due to disregard for consequences, in effect a hierarchical attitude that we are above and disconnected from the rest of the biosphere. It may seem counter-intuitive but increasing sensitivity to stress in the general population (however, and if, that may be done) may actually make us stronger, more resilient in terms of our relationship with the rest of nature in addition to making society fairer. It may even be sustainability cannot be achieved any other way within the stark limits of human nature.