Well it's subjective, but surely you can believe there are a lot of -1.50
myopes who are subjectively happy with their uncorrected near vision.

Myopia only propagates in nature when it is beneficial to some subset of the
species.

-MT

You may have this opinion, but most average presbyopes don't (IMHO
only).  I have worked as an associate doctor at two different LASIK-
based practices now and the last place really didn't like me
discussing this point with patients at all.  Very often I would see
patients on 1 day follow-ups who told me that the day of surgery they
used to be able to read the newspaper in the morning without their
glasses but that morning (after surgery) they realized they couldn't
any more. They didn't understand that that was going to happen to them
when they got LASIK.  Sure it was brushed over very quickly when they
got the typical "disclaimer" stuff from the doctor after they accepted
that they would do the procedure.  They just didn't catch it along
with all the other blah blah.  I think that frankly sucks and that's
one of the reasons I left there.

I'm slightly myopic in one eye (-0.75) and a little more in the other
(-1.75) and I'm also presbyopic.  I wouldn't have LASIK for the
world.  I get around quite well this way and to make presbyopes
perfectly 20/20 in the distance (or worse yet, slightly hyperopic as
many LASIK practices seem to do) and make them totally dependent on
carrying crutch-like readers around is not desirable to most average
folks.  As slight myopes, most presbyopes can where single vision
distance glasses that they lift up to read.

Sure, its all a person's opinion as to whether its better to be
slightly myopic as a presbyope versus perfectly emmetropic as your
position seems to be.  Every one is different and everyone is entitled
to a totally informed consent.   But I think more people would agree
that a little myopia isn't a bad thing when you get over 40.

of course I don't "know that" from just what his story is on the
original NG post.  it's not appropriate to presume my response to him
was a definitive diagnosis.  i simply have taken what his personal
history and complaint was at face value rather than assume that he
must be wrong or might be exaggerating.  and if what you have imagined
to be the case is correct, i.e. that he slowly drifted to about -0.50,
and then progressed another -1.00 to -1.50 within a month's time (and
you don't know that either although I agree that's more likely the
case) that's a little out of the ordinary too, don't you think?

what I read is that: 1). he claims he has detected a recent change in
his vision within the last month and that previously it was "fine",
and 2). he appears to be believing that a LASIK enhancement is an
appropriate solution to the problem without considering the cause or
stability of his recent change, or even if he has actually had a
recent change at all as he claims.

of course we have no objective data on which to make a recommendation
to the poster-- we have only his subjective complaint-- but I don't
know why you think it's more appropriate to disbelieve him out of hand
and instead confabulate your own scenario that you believe to be more
likely even though that's not what he says.  I believe that's a
dangerous route to take.

i think caution is appropriate and I would hope that we all would
agree that the original poster should see his eye doc for a more
objective evaluation than just getting an enhancement--- right?

and seeing your eye doc rather than taking advise from people over the
internet is good idea regardless.