Question

EXTRAORDINARY NEWS: Within the next two years, everyone could have vision three times greater than a natural perfect 20/20 vision!

Answer 1

Read all about it

http://bgr.com/2015/05/22/ocumetics-bionic-lens-perfect-eyesight/

Answer 2

The craziest part about it for me, is that it takes 8 minutes....and they aren't like contacts where they can pop out, they are directly inserted in the eye.

Answer 3

If this truly does come out, I know what I'm gonna be asking for christmas...wow..

Answer 4

@kidrah69

Answer 5

I WANT THIS.

Answer 6

ME WANT T_T

Answer 7

honestly it sounds too good to be true

Answer 8

but you never know i guess

Answer 9

would you say vision three times as great as 20/20 is a little too strong..?

Answer 10

yea .... =_= a bit too strong but imagina everything u can see ;)

Answer 11

Well you don't know what to expect...technology is flying through the roof

Answer 12

Three times as strong as far as resolution or zoom? Sorry I'm on my phone and can't open the link lol

Answer 13

Pretty sure it's resolution, zoom would be a bad thing

Answer 14

Lol yeah but not if you could adjust it

Answer 15

You know what? Lets take a step outside our comfort zone and see whether this is actually a good idea or not...shall we?

As awesome as this sounds, and admittedly it is quite astounding, don't you think that the degree of sight we have at the moment is quite adequate which is 120 degrees per eye (starting from the front and going to the side towards our ear), that gives a combined vision of 240 degrees.

Now imagine being able to see triple distance, in every which way possible ...wow, right? Now think again...you're seeing triple the distance, you're seeing stuff you weren't normally going to be seeing. What ever you are seeing, at that distance, usually concerns you in no way...granted some might catch a couple of stray criminals etc. etc...but when it comes down to it your mind will always be on hyper alert mode, trying to grasp everything and store it away. We'll start suffering a lot more from hyper tension and high blood pressure...

Our bodies have been created to perfection, altering what we have been blessed with, sometimes, seems like a good idea, but when it comes down to it, have you ever noticed that 'natural' almost always looks better - take hair dying for instance, your original hair color almost always suits your complexion better, the change is just refreshing, that's all.

unless somebody is going to be upgrading all the other elements in our bodies to cope with this super power...I think I'll pass (though I think I would have done that anyways, I can't stand the thought of somebody tinkering away inside me, as though I was a car or a robot)

I think this is just one of those ideas that seem astounding at first glance and then, later on, you reconsider. Much the same as wishing there were no adults when you are younger.

Answer 16

I have spoken like the true part pooper :)
and I don't think I conveyed what I was trying to either...oh well!

Answer 17

Your 'natural" is better argument is pretty valid. The hair dye part is true.

Answer 18

@Javk

regardless of how far a person is able to see, they are only seeing at a distance they are currently focused on. Even with your current strength of vision, you're not taking in the full range of view at high definition, if your looking at your computer or phone you'll notice that it is sharp (as clear as your own eyesight allows) while the background is fuzzy and unfocused.

The only difference, is that if you wanted to focus on something farther away you wouldn't be able to. It is a little ridiculous to think that we'd be wide-eyed goldfish if we could see farther, overwhelmed by all the sensory data. The fact is, you would only be focusing at the distance that you consciously intended, like we do now.

As far as the naturalist view (it seems like you believe in a Creator based on your wording, forgive my presumption if not), I totally agree. HOWEVER, the subject of hair color is completely subjective, and while it might be a nice appeal to emotion, it's not really a good argument.

Furthermore, in opposition to this argument; consider the currently applied augmentations of the human body that have worked with tremendous success, such as vaccinations, prosthetics, one could even argue that automobiles are an augmentation to the human body. These things are unnatural in the sense that they are not innate, however are certainly natural in the sense that they are a function of human ingenuity.

I hope you don't feel like I'm attacking you, I just like to clarify.

Answer 19

@redbeardd nothing in medicine is successful at 100% level. Please do not ignore that.
Its okay to accept technology that would help your eyesight, but please don't be fooled. Its not 'naturalist' point of view but Realist. We as people involved with medicine and researches have tried to combat diseases and disorders for years
Trying to find a possible way to get rid of the problem
We were successful in some cases, as in now we have medications that do work
but im sure you know all the limitations and all the effects of medications (we also cant ignore the state of the body of patient before taking medication), there is just so much to consider..
Our body, i myself see it as perfect, has its own security system, its own highly organized circulatory system, digestive, endocrine, nervous etc. And it doesnt want foreign body inside itself
so when we try to put something inside, we always worry about the response the body may give
if this stage is passes successfully and the body managed to adapt to it, this is good news
now next concern is lifetime of the object inside, then limitations on lifestyle of the individual
Anything you put inside the body, distorts certain systems in one way or another, thus puts up certain limitations on your way of living.
to conclude
20/20 vision, well even if they can do it, please be aware of the limitations that im sure will come along.
(p.s. i couldnt read the article, from phone)

Answer 20

Though) its really good that we can do something like that, even if there are limitations but at least it gives hope and even a new life to people that need them :DDDD

Answer 21

@redbeardd
I completely agree with you, the focal point of the person does play a big role in what they are predominantly seeing, however, lets take other factors into consideration,

What you notice is different from what you are viewing.The things that you notice are things you see in passing, things you see out of the corner of your eyes or sense. I believe the issue that will arise will be linked more to the peripheral vision rather than the objects you are focusing upon, since (like you said) the focal point is voluntary, within our control, and can thereby be limited consciously.
But what about when your body is on fight or flight mode, you are high on adrenaline. What then?

Imagine you are in a basketball game and you are on high alert, your visual capacity has been tripled, so instead of being limited to noticing actions at the far end of the court, you are now also able to notice the kid the dropped his ice cream in the stands, a bit distracting don't you think?

As for turning into "wide-eyed goldfish" (insert sigh)...well the physical location of your eyes is not being changed, I repeat, not being changed, and what's more goldfishes are known to be rather short sighted :P

Yeah I do believe in a creator, I believe the universe is proof in its self. The idea of chaos turning to order without anyone's control is rather hard to swallow.

I know, I know, my example did have a bit of a pathetic vibe, and in no way can it be used as a proof, a year studying discrete mathematics has taught me that much. Though I still do believe there is a correlation between the two and for arguments sake I believe it could be deemed legit.

In response to your last point, you are completely correct (again!), though I would say that using vaccines is slightly different and not as relevant. Prosthetics, I concede, are a close match though. I read in a scientific article that it is possible to achieve a much greater speed on prosthetic limbs than on foot because it requires about one sixth the energy required to travel the same distance (I read this a while back and I apologize in advance if the figure 'one sixth' is not spot on). But then, again, look around you, You don't really see people that were blessed with functioning limbs voluntarily getting them replaced with prosthetics, do you? Even if they admittedly do a good job.

(BEWARE! I am about to use human appeal again) Take an author for instance, when they write a book, they know what they want to portray, what each character looks like etc. now I would like to portray two scenarios here: either I come along and change part of the script, and if I am well acquainted with the author then there is a 2% chance that the book has been enhanced in the authors point of view (or I have just ruined their hard work). Scenario number two, along comes a kid and draws (or rather scribbles) all over the book. There is a possibility that the book hasn't been rendered completely useless, the characters are still the same and the story line is still the same, but the book has in no way been enhanced.

Don't worry I don't feel attacked. I just hope that upon seeing my poorly punctuated response you don't feel like I've lifted a bazooka loaded with migraines :)

I know that there are always two sides of the story and being someone that was told at quite a young age that she would have relatively poor eyesight for the entirety of her life, and that 20/20 vision was out of the question even while wearing glasses, I know the impact a discovery like this could have, I just feel dubious about this one in particular.

AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER
THE END!