Devolving in what way? Survival in "the wild"? And if so is this meant to be measured on a population average or based on the number of individuals? Are you saying we should use our own standards? Because while that is all well and good according to the democratic and egalitarian views of our society(I'm assuming you grew up in a modern "western" country) that can still cause a lot of "talking past each other" and whatnot.
Also the video was alright but still had a lot of annoying mistakes, like including the term mistake in their description of evolution and mutation. Also isn't the sole factor in evolution mating? The video straight up says that the only two ways your genes don't gets passed on is if you die before you mate or if you don't get to mate before you die....but those are essentially the same thing, no?
Ultimately I would say yeah, kinda, and that's because most of the thing that nature and "the wild selected us for are what helped us get to this point in civilization anyway. And i think we would get on a lot better if more of us had the qualities we would need to survive in the wild. But the kinda is still kinda important and really i think the parameters of the question need to be defined more precisely before i could give a truly thoughtful answer.
They're coded the same but mean different things. One implies you die young but would attract a mate if given the chance, one implies you survive but are somehow too unfit to attract a mate. I don't think there was anything wrong with the way they communicated this because it's important that both are emphasised for the viewers comprehension.
I'm team super. I think we're going to be able to bypass evolutionary processes eventually, and this will make all the doomsday eugenicists go away... but probably serve as catalyst to a new class struggle. Dunno how that will unfold.