We may have made things that we don't need to survive, but we made things that make survival easier and chances of survival much more likely. We don't want to make things that get things done faster just because we're lazy, it's because we want to have more time for construction and production. Once more things are constructed and produced, once again survival chances are increased. Isn't the survival of yourself and the expansion of your species, after all, the subconscious if not conscious goal of all creatures?

As long as the biological scoreboard of the world says:
Humans: 1 - Other living beings: 0

we are evolved

your right person. but humans deserve to die. all of them
...DIE...

and yes cars are killing us. indirectly, on a small scale the are. really.
you say we can life without cars?? without cars,boats and planes or whole economic system would crash... people couldnt get vacations to country's like spain, it would be inposseble to trade on large scale, and so on.

Yeah, you really do. Suicidial bastard. You couldn't even be thinking like this
if you hadn't evolved. But then again, there's this thing called the Darwin Award... >______________>


Yeah, by incompetent drivers ramming their fucking cars into other people.
The emissions aren't going to kill you unless you breathe it directly for a prolonged
period of time. And having a busy road outside your cozy house does not mean
that you're breathing it directly.


Because economical crash sure does mean the end of mankind. Seriously.
Yes, we are materialistic, but no, that does not mean that we will die if money
disappears. Humans are adaptable. Which is why we're probably the most successful
mammals on Earth, like it or not.

Quite, economic crash =/= end of times.

In fact, when the economy is working it's doing more damage than when it's completely broken.

If humanity hadn't evolved the potential to utilise tools, we would be "devolved" (as you put it) in our current physical state, as humans are nowhere near as effective physically as most creatures of their approximate size.

As it happens, we do use tools, nothing else uses tools to the extent that we do, ergo superiority. It's really that simple.

One problem that you've unintentionally highlighted is the concept that humans are cause for mass destruction; this isn't "devolution" as such, but rather the opposite - if any creature was as superior to everything else as humans are, it would cause mass destruction, for example, mass extinctions. For most creatures, it's the fact that they are not superior, the fact that they are not perfectly adapted to their environment or their "purpose" (for lack of a better word) that keeps them in check and stops them from "damaging the world". It's an ironic product of our superiority that we cause so much damage.

okey. i think that we finished here.

conclusion: i think that we came too the conclusion that we are mentally evolved but physically devolved? am i right?

Actually, no. Why? There is no such thing as devolution. Senseless Wikipedia copy-paste comin' right up:

TL;DR: Evolution is not directional, and hence cannot be reversed. Evolution is not always for the better either, but it generally is. If you have a bigger chance of surviving with a longer neck, chances are that you won't be evolving into a race of creatures with little to no neck at all. Of course, evolution is SLOW, and doesn't happen just like that, but you get what i mean.

i dont get this argument, can you explain?

Those who are least likely to survive, die. Thus, ruling out devolution.

what you just said is this if i am correct: evolution can be both forward or backwards. we can get much smarter and call that evolution but we can also forgot everything we know and stop using tools because we dont kwow what they are and call that evolution too?