I think that at least in some situation the opposite should be true, in so far a person's ability to daydream might depend on their creativity. Given a sufficiently high ability do day dream, the day dreamer is never bored, no matter how stimulus poor the environment is.
I think a good comparison would be how children have come to rely more on toy-play over imagination-play over the years (or centuries). Not long ago, kid might have had pretty fun day with nothing but a stick and a pool of mud (to use George Carlin's imagery). But if you took a contemporary child and blast them through a time-machine some fifty years into the past, they'd be massively bored once they got there (besides being somewhat shocked because of the whole being-kidnapped-and-shot-into-the-past thing). In this case, past children were more creative, but also less prone to boredom.
I'm not too sure about that. Even in the past you would have kids who had more than the other kids. Toys have been with us humans for as long as we have been around. We are always manipulating objects around us.
If you took a kid from today and shot him 50 years ago, he may have an adjustment period, but he may just find himself interacting with the environment more.
Kids in the past probably had more creative uses out of their environment but put them in the digital world and their creativity wouldn't be there.
I wouldn't say that kids at any time period in human history were ever more creative. They were just creative about different things.
Toys always have been around, sure. But their quantity, variety and complexity (note: I include video games here) has massively increased through economic development. A hundred and twenty years ago the median American child might have had a rag-doll. Seventy or so, a teddy bear. Twenty years ago, a whole collection of dolls and toy-figures.
In so far as simpler toys require more imagination than complex toys, I still think that the effective level of creativity required of children has fallen. But I think the issue you've put forward is fair enough: there's not much* reason to believe that the potential level of creativity of children has fallen. Children might have much higher creative potential than they're currently exploiting, in which case they'd be able to adapt.
*: If performance on tasks involving creativity is positively related IQ, that coupled with the Flynn effect would suggest that creativity has increased over history. I call this "not much reason" because I'm not to sure why the Flynn effect exists and I don't think the researchers are sure yet either.
I think a good comparison would be how children have come to rely more on toy-play over imagination-play over the years (or centuries). Not long ago, kid might have had pretty fun day with nothing but a stick and a pool of mud (to use George Carlin's imagery). But if you took a contemporary child and blast them through a time-machine some fifty years into the past, they'd be massively bored once they got there (besides being somewhat shocked because of the whole being-kidnapped-and-shot-into-the-past thing). In this case, past children were more creative, but also less prone to boredom.