It's interesting to consider whether uncivilized tribes/nations would be more likely to survive than civilized people if civilization collapsed. Does mean civilized people are at an evolutionary disadvantage to those uncivilized? We are indeed less likely to die of animal incidents, infection, exposure, etc. But, our comfortable way of life also makes us weak. Very few know how to live off the land. Our fight or flight instincts are not as sharp because they are not thoroughly being exercised. Our bodies are generally weaker due to not being used as much or in the same ways.
At the same time, civilization gives us the ability to focus on higher mental tasks than basic survival. We work on other projects to obtain currency, this currency being many of our life forces for survival. It's how we get food, shelter, medicine, etc. Most of the time, civilized people have longer lives, often prolonged by medicine. We can focus on solving problems for humanity as a whole rather than smaller groups of our immediate peers.
But, what we CAN do isn't what many CHOOSE to do. We have access to so much information, but many do not take advantage and are stuck in lower mental states. We feed off of technology for bursts of instant gratification, rather than using this tool to work towards something giving us delayed gratification, ultimately more rewarding. Many are dumbed down, disconnected from other people, and confused by conflicting information. Many eat foods lacking nutrition that they barely had to life a finger to get. We waste time in decision paralysis because of all the options we have in many regards.
We have the ability to be so much more...but it seems that civilization has made it so many are weaker and do not work hard towards really making differences in their lives and others. So who's at the evolutionary advantage, civilized or uncivilized people? I don't think the answer isn't as obvious as it may seem.