Louis Newstrom, <email@example.com>, writes:
> Now I enjoy near 20-20 vision. I think that this should have been
> allowed even BEFORE I developed cateracts. But that begs the question,
> how far should we go? For example, my older brother was blessed with
> excellent eyesight, on the order of 20-15. I'll bet the world-record
> best eyesight is even better than that. It seems obvious that I should
> have been allowed to artificially increase my eyesight to 20-20, because
> that is "normal" for humans. Should I also be allowed to artificially
> increase my vision to 20-15 because that is "normal" for some people?
> This would actually be increasing my vision beyond what most people
> would consider "normal". Most people would consider that "cybernetic".
That's an amazing story. I'm glad that you have finally been able to
have your vision corrected.
A while back we talked about this article from Popular Science about a
technology which could potentially give people 20-10 vision using adaptive
They claim that it could be used with Lasik eye surgery, but having had
that treatment I am skeptical. The eye, like any biological tissue,
reacts somewhat unpredictably to the laser treatment. My vision
fluctuated for months, getting better and worse, finally settling down to
good but not as good as it had been at its best. Until they have rock
solid prediction of how the cornea will react, they won't be able to
guarantee you perfect vision. But it could still improve the procedure.
This would not technically qualify as being a cyborg, but it is definitely
an artificial enhancement that relies heavily on technology.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT