Evolution does not care about our ideology. If we don't account for it and nerf its edge, though forms of selection that don't cause suffering to conscious creatures, like embryo selection or genetic engineering, then we will have to wait for Malthus to provide sufficient selection pressure to ensue our survival or extinction. This fingers-in-ears approach to biological reality would be concerning if countries like Korea and China weren't poised to exploit embryo selection and genetic modification for increased health and IQ, thus likely forcing more reactionary countries like us in the west to adopt them, too.
Please take another look at my second link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_epidemiology#Overall...
If there's some analysis of evolutionary pressure over time I'd be interested to see it, although I'm not sure it can really be quantified like that.
'A strong link between cognitive ability and the risk of death.'
'A 15-point increase in intelligence was associated with a decreased risk of mortality of 32%.'
Wikipedia suffers a bit from not trying to be too neutral!!
Local cases of intelligence not helping with mortality/reproduction in todays society are not contradictory. This is the (dysgenic) thesis that intelligence does not help. Although increased mortality is perhaps a little harder to explain, but again hardly irreconcilable - I could speculate many plausible explanations.
To address your point, I feel it is intuitively true that we do not have positive evolutionary pressure. If indeed IQs are now falling despite the flynn effect then for intelligence at least here is the evidence for insufficient evolutionary pressure.
So there is no evolutionary pressure. Evolution is a (brutal) system of unfairness that represents everything that modern progressive values work against. This is something that will need reconciling (or many technologists will hope for genetic engineering I guess) or in the long term will not be sustainable.
Consider your children are on average genetically inferior to you. This is mathematically true. A society which uniformly has 2 children per person + 100% survival will regress. In fact it may take something closer to mediaval or even prehistoric reproductive outcomes to have positive evolutionary pressure. This could be many people having 4-5 children, with many other people who are 'unfit' not having children at all (either remaining childless or dying early).
The subsequent improvements in education,environment and nutrition have likely provided a dividend that masked a fall in underlying genetic intelligence. Naturally as those gains have been fully realised the underlying trend will reassert itself.