If I am repeating myself or others, sorry. For most of us, including the great Jack Nicklaus, our sight begins to deteriorate in our mid-30s. By the time we hit 50, many of us can't see our balls landing, much less the location of the flag from 20+ yards further out than our younger friends (40+ yards behind David, in my case).
As one who is lucky enough to play at a few of the better clubs, though often only one time, I wouldn't understand or enjoy an unfamiliar course nearly as much if I had to guess my way around. Having confidence that a carry is 170 yards and not 195 allows me to hit a shot more affirmatively. And while Bob Huntley's comment about the average golfer's distance control is true, I suspect that his (the average golfer's) ability to eye-ball distances is commesurate with his ability to execute the shot. That is, if a hacker has to guess whether he is 170 or 195, the dispersion of his shots would even be greater.
In the absence of a good caddy, accurate yardages puts all those who CHOOSE to avail themselves of this information at a more level competitive position vis-a-vis his more experienced playing partner/opponent. In other words, it reduces the huge advantage of local knowledge.
It seems to me that golf is a difficult enough game that it should not need a different set of skills, those of a surveyor, if the information is readily available. If we want the game to be trully hard, lets just play with sticks and stones.
In my opinion, the suggestion that yardage information slows play is just a red herring. For fun, we should test the theory at an "unofficial" future gca.com outing, though the methodology of the experiment may be rather difficult. Projected results: no distance information = longer round + higher scores + less enjoyment (unless we're liquored-up).