That's a stretch, because it implies intent for diversity. Mass extinction through a lack of robustness is definitely something that natural selection selects for, but the inverse is true where too much genetic variability leads to less reproduction, and a drift towards uniformity over generations.

The bigger assumption in this article is in what natural selection selects for with humans. For sole individuals in any species, you typically need only to live long enough to reproduce viable offspring. With humans, we've evolved intelligence that has lead to a tribal culture.

That means that natural selection doesn't apply to the individual, but the majority of the species. The best individual of the entire human species is enough to hold natural selection back for everyone else (i.e. vaccines, engineering feats, etc.). That doesn't mean we've evolved to making bad decisions, it just means that the collective knowledge of our species is now being subjected to natural selection instead.