Widespread Stenopia (as far as I can see)

I've posted a little news clipping here:

"Are you far-sighted or near-sighted? This is the question most often used to ask someone about their vision. Yet, we rarely recognize the assumptions that are inherent in the question, assumptions which define our perspective on sight: we quantify the accuracy of vision by measuring its deviation from average eye-sight in terms of the detail observed along a spectrum of distance. Variations in the shape of the eye affect the point at which light comes to focus in relation to the retina. If light focuses before of the retina, then the result is near-sightedness, behind the retina, far-sightedness.

The effects of these conditions are often represented as 20/x, whereas the subject can read at 20 yards, what the average person can see at x yards. The way in which we codify vision represents our understanding of quality of vision: the clarity of universally perceived details as compared to the average person.

However, scientists have recently been investigating another, and apparently common, vision impairment known as narrow-sightedness. In this case, a person afflicted by narrow-sightedness may not even be observing the same image at all. Ironically, the predominance of narrow-sightedness around the world has thwarted the identification of disparate perception, and, therefore, any knowledge of the condition. In the past, vision has been judged by its ability to preform certain tasks. However, as we are beginning to see, there is more to vision than detail at a distance.

The exact cause of narrow-sightedness has been hotly debated. Regardless, several treatments have already been proposed. Many doctors in the United States have advocated surgical relocation of the eyes to the outside of the skull. Theoretically, widening the three dimensional field of vision would alleviate issues of narrow-sightedness and potentially increase depth perception.

However, this method has been criticized by those who believe that the condition occurs within the eye itself. If that is the case, they say, each eye must be altered in a way that would allow for an increased intake of light. Thus, many of those who ascribe to this vein of thought advocate dilation of the pupils. However, opponents of this theory argue that the dilation of pupils simply replaces the spectrum of vision with an equally limited albeit different spectrum, as perceivable levels of light are compromised.

Recently, the beginnings of a fine argument were made by those who advocated the use of recreational drugs to alleviate narrow sightedness. Unfortunately, they forgot where their train of thought was going.

Experts on narrow-sightedness have pointed out that many of these suggestions reveal symptoms of narrow-sightedness in the people who have developed them. However, the experts themselves have been accused of getting "too close to the case," and that they are projecting narrow-sightedness onto everything that they encounter. Thus, at the moment, a cure for narrow-sightedness is no where in sight."

Check out my sea serpent post from October 2008! I just finished it, or at least gave up and posted it (below).