Sadly most research in this area went out of fashion 30+ years ago.
This is outright false. A person with acute vision can perceive stereopsis out to 1/4 mile. Trivially, 3D movies are projected onto screens which are 10m away.
> which is why we can also understand pictures
We don't drive using pictures.
But of course we do. It's how we throw rocks and hit what we aim at. It's how we catch things. It's how we walk around anywhere that has obstacles. We use it beyond the reach of our arms really frequently.
Basically, could you do it with one eye closed? Without stereopsis, tasks involving close-up things are harder, but farther away things are not.
If I'm running through the woods, trying to escape from a bear, stereopsis is pretty useful, because dodging trees while at a dead run is life or death.
I don't do either of those, but some of my ancestors probably did. But I play sports. I may be able to catch a ball with one eye. Getting myself to where the ball is going? I couldn't do that as well with only one eye.
So: Do I need stereopsis? No. Did the human race? Yes, it was a competitive advantage to have.
I would love to see a sports game where one team can use both eyes, and the other team only has one eye uncovered. I imagine it'd be downright funny.