A better auditory perception would be useful even for those who can see.
Here's a description of how Daniel Kish experiences the world:
Here's a training guide and more videos and stuff:
UPDATE: Information from a recent scientific study on echolocation: "Physical Analysis of Several Organic Signals for Human Echolocation: Oral Vacuum Pulses"
From my perspective the reporting of this paper in the media was generally quite annoying, as if the scientists actually invented echolocation or something like that. I reacted HERE.
Part of it below:
I find it a bit disturbing that people say that it has now been "shown that human beings can develop echolocation". Specifically it is being referred to as if scientists have made a new discovery or validated an old unproven claim.
I think this indicates that people internalized the concept of science as the only reliable authority or something like that, and they won't even believe in their own eyes or trust common sense unless scientists publish something to support a certain view. Because it was already completely evident that people could use echolocation. I mean people were already using it. Didn't those people exist prior to the publishing of this article? Why did it take a few scientists to publish a paper on this topic for many other scientific minds to start talking about this properly?
This situation bothers me. For it shows that we're not relying on rational, individual thinking but "science" has become more like an authoritarian practice, religion-like in a way.
I think this is a small symptom of a big problem, that's why I made a big deal about it. For those who were curious enough the truth was evident out there. Unless you have an obsession with conspiracy theories or you're a peer-review worshiper you shouldn't have any reason to doubt all the evidence available online... I guess my problem is that many times I've seen people refer to peer-review as if it's a perfect, holy process, that they seem to have lost touch with the reality. Blinded by peer-review, sounds about right. And similarly, the problems with peer-review are also often overlooked. Sure there is always room for doubt, but it shouldn't always necessitate peer-reviewed publications for people to take things seriously, and the room for doubt shouldn't magically become tiny because of an excessively-praised, problematic process...