Why Do So Many Humans Need Glasses? | Hacker News Reader

Why Do So Many Humans Need Glasses?

psychologytoday.com

67 pointsjasonhansel44 comments

My personal opinion is that the eye development is an adaptive process. During the eye development, the body has a feedback system that make sure the eyeball size matches the lens focusing capability so that the eye can focus to infinity. However, nothing can tell the feedback process what infinity is, thus I guess, the eye will assuming the most commonly archived far side focusing condition is the "infinity". Well, in modern days, people spend so much time in door and in front of computers, the body believe that is likely the infinity focusing condition, and thus the feedback system grow the eyeball bigger to make that the "infinity focusing" condition.

Obviously, this is a personal opinion, there is no science to back it up.

This tracks for me. As a kid I spent lots of time randomly staring up close at the smallest of details I could, deliberately shifting my focus and gaze on magic eye books, and frequently staring far off into the distance to see how far away I could still make out things like individual leaves on trees. I'd even do it indoors, curious to see how dirty/clear/distorting the window glass was, or see how far across the room I could make out details like felt tufting or smaller brickwork or mortar texturing.

If I'm honest I still do most of this from time to time, just less magic eye books and a lot less impulsively thanks to years of learning to keep my ADHD under control, oh and drugs help too.

This sort of fits into what I said here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30412140 talking about ADHD. The adaptive process of someone who is more neurotypical will not include a heavy dose of random distracted looking around the room. ADHD may skew the scale on the feedback process by adding in a lot more further focusing events. Even randomly focusing across a classroom is probably beneficial.

I did the same. I also didn't have a computer.

Still ended up with severe myopia and a less severe astigmatism... Just like my dad who never used a computer and was an outdoor sportsman.

I upvoted, because it is an extremely interesting theory, which could potentially explain vision problems. But unfortunately it is simply does not fit real world data: a lot of kids around 6yo start loosing ability to focus on stuff right in front of them (like a book) despite both reading quite a bit, and spending significant time outside.

Now add in the fact that wearing minus lenses for close works restarts this process of hormesis, and you begin to realize that the entire optical industry ends up worsening a problem that they conveniently offer a "solution" to. Any minus lenses you purchase need to come with a big warning that they should not be used for distances closer than the focal plane.

You will never see that happening. A $100 billion industry exists solely because of it. I feel sad whenever I see kids doing near work with glasses.

The kafka-esque part is that they're well aware of the issue, because many of the lens companies (hoya, zeiss) have come up with "myopia control glasses" which are basically just minus lenses but with reduced power on the periphery, which they'll gladly sell you for added markup. It's no surprise that these are better than full-on minus lenses for close work, but you know what would be even better? Telling children to remove their glasses when using the computer or reading. But that doesn't bring in any profit.

Special scorn should be directed towards those that prescribe glasses for young kids for something as low as 0.25 diapers. And those that prescribe unequal power two both eyes rather than advising patching to equate both eyes.

This is exactly what I think is the reason. We are adapting for environment that we are in every day. Monitor, phone screen, tablet, books... There is less and less time we spend looking into "infinity".

Put more simply, kids in prehistoric times would almost always be looking at things further away than books and screens.

This is mostly bollocks.

Sure modern technologies is a big reason, but another reason is people caring about eyesight now.

Before, if you had a bad eyesight, you just thought "life...!" and lived with it.

The old world was segregated into a very very tiny upper class and the rest. When people from the latter part had diminished eyesight, they didn't bother. They thought that it was natural.

Now, with so many people in the middle class who need good eyesight to browse Facebook, read books, or do a job, glasses are needed.

I didn’t even realize I had bad eye sight as a kid. I still remember the first time I put on glasses (age 12) and feeling both sick and elated at how poor my eyesight had become, yet how much more I could now see.

Your brain adapts remarkably well. Can’t see people you’re approaching? Alright, don’t try - just try to see when you know they’re close enough. Can’t see the chalk board? Whatever, just move closer.

I suspect a lot of times I couldn’t see things, I didn’t even realize it too. What’s to be upset about if you can’t see it, and don’t realize you’re supposed to?

I like my glasses and being able to see, but I doubt growing up like this without glasses would have mattered all that much to me. It would be a deal breaker for driving; I can’t consider for a second driving without glasses. Otherwise I could do a lot of the things I do the most, and I could do it well.

Right after picking up my first glasses, me and my father sat down to have a snack in a café. I wasn't wearing the glasses, because they made the world bob around. Safely at the table, I put them on and looked out the window. That's when I felt, for the first time, that trees have individual leaves even when you're not close by. They even flutter in the wind, even at the top of the tree. I'd never been able to see the top of a tree in detail.

Still remember that weird moment from 30 years ago. Addicted to glasses ever since.

Yes, I especially love the leaves with lighter undersides which seem to flicker in a breeze. Those were so gratifying to look at, and still are.

My test to see if I need a new prescription is looking at the tops of trees and assessing how much detail I can see, because the proper amount of detail is so imprinted in my mind now.

Another thing I love looking at is distant mountains. They are covered in so many fascinating details. Before glasses, they were dark walls with white caps. With glasses, they are like small worlds standing in front of me. The trees themselves become the leaves of the mountain. It’s very cool to actually see what’s on them. Last year I spotted a waterfall on one and sat for half an hour or so picking out where the stream was above and below it, began to notice patterns in the vegetation that would help me follow the stream, saw things like landslides which disrupted the patterns, began to notice a colour gradient in the same species of tree as the altitude lowered, etc. Endless details. Without glasses that experience would have been impossible.

Yes, wearing a glass certainly feels good, just like eating something you like, or a favorite smell.

Being able to see much clearer than before is definitely a nice feeling.

Exactly my point.

Unless you experienced some barrier that made you sure that you had a problem, you wouldn't even know that you had a problem (unless we are talking about advanced stage glaucoma or something like that- but these are mostly age-related ailments).

And the more you go back in time, the less the number of people that would find out. Glasses were certainly an upper-class thing, as reading was an upper class thing.

I did not even realize that I had a problem with my eyes until I found out that I could not see the blackboard from a distance that other kids could.

Before that, I just thought that the blackboard couldn't be seen at all from that distance, and I found a nice zone from where I could read everything without risking the chalk-dust.

Until I compared my reading ability at distance with several friends, I did not even know that I had a problem.

Yep people don't understand history very well. Just a hundred years ago half of the population worked in agriculture. The only education you got was primary school. I am glad I live in the 21st century were I don't have to spend a single second doing farm work or heavy manual labor.

I've been getting farsighted for over a decade now. When I first recognized that I needed reading glasses I really resisted using them. Bought some and only used them on days when I had to. On those days I was much more comfortable, relaxed, and not tired at the end of the day. Even know that I still avoided them for reasons not clear to me, whether I thought it might worsen my eyesight, but I suspect moreso that I didn't want to accept that I needed them.

I have a variety of strengths of reading glasses around and do use them when working, but not for casual/entertainment uses. I have gotten pretty good at reading blurry text, sort-of like how you get used to reading upside-down or mirror writing. I find that this lets my eyes be more relaxed and I don't get as tired as I used to. Even when wearing the weakest readers I always try to look up over the lens when looking far away or take them off frequently. Leaving extras around the house also means I don't feel compelled to keep them on my face in case I'll want them. My visual acuity has on occasion also varied noticeably with my blood-sugar (or other levels) and many days I'm surprised by how clearly I'm able to see, so there isn't a clear downward grade.

I have no idea if exercises actually help and other than trying to keep my eyes relaxed or screens not to bright don't do anything in particular.

Animal experiments have shown that the eye adapts to focusing distances and specific wavelenghts can induce more myopia than others.

There is also some evidence that UV radiation breaks down growth hormones.

This means computer screens and books don't matter, only time spent outdoors with a bright sun has protective effects. Alternatively you can get one of those ortho K lenses that prevent myopia from getting significantly worse when you are a child, they are very expensive though for something that our body should do for free.

My parents, younger sister and all grandparents have glasses.

I used to stare at the sun when I was young (I know, dumb), and I don't need them yet (late 30s).

Oh look, a psychology website publishes some woo "evolutionary environment" article. This is fiction and should not be taken seriously by anyone, so why do people still read it? Perhaps if you upvoted the article, you can enlighten me.

The Chinese government is concerned enough about a rise in short-sightedness due to kids being made to spend long hours in cram school, and were considering various measures to make them go outside more.

I'm no expert but from what I've gleaned from various articles around the web and some recent questions to my optician is that myopia is caused by how light rays focus inside our eyes. Rays that don't focus correctly at the back of the eye (perhaps outside the macula?) create a feedback loop that causes the eye to grow longer. Unfortunately there's no opposite effect to make the eye shorter. So naturally there's a predisposition for everyone to become short sighted with this mechanism (perhaps a primary cause of coronavision?):

"It is believed that the trigger for the eye to continue growing beyond its optimal length is in the way rays of light entering the visual system are focused on the back of the eye. In myopia, these rays or images focus in front of the retina causing a blurred image. Spectacles or contact lenses for myopia help focus these rays of light directly onto the retina in the central area correcting the vision, however, in the peripheral areas of the eye the rays of light are focused on theory “behind” the retina. It is believed this is a stimulus for the eye to grow. Myopia control or myopia management spectacles lenses and contact lenses are designed with more than one point of focus and therefore diminish this stimulus for the eye to grow."

Above quoted from:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/myopia-management-looki...

I've heard that there are some eye drops in the works that temporarily reverse this process, so that instead of wearing glasses or contacts people may be using eye drops daily for better vision.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-fda-approved-eye-...

Actually, those eye drops are to treat presbyopia which uses a different mechanism.

Presbyopia typically affects older people and presents as long-sightedness (not short-sight like I described earlier). Presbyopia causes the lens in the eye to lose its elasticity and causes the eye to focus light behind the retina.

Curiously, a similar effect (longsight) can be caused by the eyeball being too short (hypermetropia).

That said the eye drops sound like pretty cool treatment.

I thought it had been concluded that lack of exposure to bright outside light causes the eyes to elongate in puberty, as some kind of adaptation to low light.

As little as an hour a day of bright daylight (or presumably bright-enough artificial light) triggers production of the required hormone to achieve 'normal' development.

Certainly my kids get a daily hour of 'outside time', rain or shine.

I'll try to dig up the links.

It's interesting to see how the rapid advancement of technology has affected the human body over time and how we are trying to combat it with further technology. No bullshit, is there any way to reverse this apparent adaptation the eye undergoes during development? Would stimulating the eye with farther objects and other such corrections re adapt the eyes to normal? I realize there is a lot of pseudoscience and trickery in this subject so I am asking here for actual peer reviewed papers on the subject.

Because oculists will sell them to you weather you need them or not. And then you just get used to it. So many times I was maybe a bit more tired and I went to some oculist/ophthalmologist to see if I had something and they immediately try to sell you glasses. Nowadays I feel completely fine, as a software developer, using the PC heavily everyday. But I could very easily be using glasses as well

Broadly: evolutionary miss match to modern environment, but specifically: lack of fat soluble vitamins such as D3, K2 and A during critical development.

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/notes-from-yester...

To prove there is no god.

https://kingministries.com/proof-god-is-real/the-human-eye-p...

Seriously, the question smuggles in some assumptions, though.

To me, I believe, computer was the main reason. Before using computer my eyesight were ok. After with the advent of computer in my life, I became short-sighted (unable to see object that are far)

There's a common misconception that using computers is the cause of hyper/myopia. The truth is that during the early years of development(up until 15-21 years old), the eye is not yet fully developed and it has great adaptability. This means that, if you are a kid and you read too much(on paper or computers or smartphones), the eye will develop to focus mainly on short distances, this developing myopia. This is the reason why kids textbooks have big letters, so that kids don't have to focus so much to read the text, and why kids using computers/reading too much(specially smartphone usage) is detrimental to their visual health. If you did this on your early ages, that certainly explains your issue, but it's not computers per se that cause it.

The other big factor is the shape of the ocular globe. Some globes are "longer" than others, which causes the image focused by the cornea and retina to land in front or behind of the retina, causing the hyper/myopia.

What you do actually experience a lot when using the computer too much is that when you focus on a task for a long time, your blink rate decreases, the tear film breaks more often, and you get sore eyes/eye fatigue. This is solved by regular breaks, or the 20/20/20 rule[0].

[0] https://www.aoa.org/AOA/Images/Patients/Eye%20Conditions/20-...

That 20/20/20 rule, assuming that the exact times are not critical, would fit in well for people using the Pomodoro Technique [1] for time management or something similar.

I find it interesting that it also fits will with ergonomic recommendations. Both sitting too long while doing computer work and standing too long are bad for you. See this article from the old Cornell ergonomics group site [2] for details on the perils of both. Their recommendation:

> Sit to do computer work. Sit using a height-adjustable, downward titling keyboard tray for the best work posture, then every 20 minutes stand for 8 minutes AND MOVE for 2 minutes. The absolute time isn’t critical but about every 20-30 minutes take a posture break and stand and move for a couple of minutes. Simply standing is insufficient. Movement is important to get blood circulation through the muscles. And movement is FREE! Research shows that you don’t need to do vigorous exercise (e.g. jumping jacks) to get the benefits, just walking around is sufficient. So build in a pattern of creating greater movement variety in the workplace (e.g. walk to a printer, water fountain, stand for a meeting, take the stairs, walk around the floor, park a bit further away from the building each day).

Do something like pomodoro for time management and during the breaks between pomodoros spend a couple minutes walking around and looking at things in the distance and you've covered protecting both body health and eye health from the risks of computer work.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique

[2] https://ergo.human.cornell.edu/CUESitStand.html

I found having the brightness of the monitors turned helps alot, my monitor lux level is like 30 from 5cm away from the monitor. Plus as a kid I had glasses because the TV made my eyes water, the new LED light bulbs do the same thing as do some TV's.

Now a variety of chemicals are involved in eyesight, histidine has been shown to reduce or prevent cataracts building up in Salmon, vit K alters an enzyme which also reduces the calcium buildup in the eye, so I wonder if eyesight is purely down to diet and exercise?

As far as I know, there's not much evidence that physical exercise can influence visual acuity on humans(other than reducing it due to general body fatigue), though I'd love to read more on that if someone happens to know of a study on the subject. Diet, on the other hand, may influence it. Generally speaking you can't consider a part of the body as if it were it's own isolated system: the general state of the body will influence them. To give a practical example, contraceptive pills change the tear composition making it hard for women taking them to use contact lenses.

Most of the issues related to lights/monitors, apart from the effects on the eye development due to prolonged near distance focus, are related to the quality of the tear film, not so much about the actual visual acuity or the refractive capacity of the eye. For example, the ambar-colored night mode that most OS have now not only decreases the brightness, which helps with visual fatigue, but also stimulates the production of melatonin, which is essential to enter "night mode" and make it easier to fall asleep, in contrast with blue lights, which reduces melatonin production and puts you on alert mode during the day.

In humans, cataract is mostly(not accounting for birth pathologies or trauma) caused because the crystalline, since we are born, never stops producing collagen, the substance it's mostly composed of. At late ages, the crystalline has produced so much collagen that it loses transparency, thus causing cataracts. It's also the same reason people develop presbyopia as they age: the collagen production reduces the crystalline elasticity, making it harder and harder for the eye to adjust it and focus on near distances.

K1 Enzyme I think I was thinking about. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6789135/

Salmon cataracts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709424/

>you can't consider a part of the body as if it were it's own isolated system True, we cant control where some chemicals go in the body, but this is where the pathways come into play or the other chemicals in a meal. For example, there is reportedly a gut receptor for copper or zinc which can take upto about 800mg a day, but copper and zinc are competing obviously. Other factors include say tea drinking, wear https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/phytate inhibit copper, zinc and iron iirc.

So when thinking about say supplementing, sometimes the delivery mechanism or consumption format doesnt help.

Vitamin K1 doesnt appear to have an upper limit if taken orally, but inject it and you will get a reaction.

Its like a complex chemical maths puzzle, but by bit studies give us a range of info and its a case of piecing it all together. In some cases studies dont even exist!

Well that definitely tracks my theory. As outlined https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30412185 I definitely didn't develop the short distance focus habits as a child.

Do you know if the childhood developmental component has any relation to above average vision?

> Do you know if the childhood developmental component has any relation to above average vision?

Unfortunately I don't know, I'd like to know more too :)

Not really. I had glasses long before smartphones and before I had a computer.

See, this is the problem with validating with anecdotes. For one for, five can be immediately found against.

Good for you. I was diagnosed as being short-sighted when I was 6. Had my first computer at 9.

That raises the important point that the article didn't really put any effort into distinguishing.

Theres clearly "developmental" and "inherent", eye issues. My partner has a thorny case of astigmatism, you don't just develop a structural defect in the eye like that from environmental inputs, so its an established situation that some percentage of human eyeballs turn out different, it would be naive to think at least some percentage of long and short sightedness didn't also occur in this way.

But once again I'm a computer person not a medical researcher so I could be wrong and it might be well established fact that astigmatism is the only inherent defect you're born with.

Yeah, I was diagnosed at 6, had my first sustained computer interaction at 9, had my first computer at 21, first cellphone at 25. (I'm old, but I also live in the myopia capital of the world)

As someone with a computer heavy job and hobbies, I’m pretty impressed I’ve held onto better than 20/20 sight into my 30s. I’ve started to suspect that it might have something to do with having ADHD and the corresponding moments of distraction leading to above average amounts of eye movement and related refocusing leaving the eye “better exercised” than more attentive peers. While it’s just a data a point of one it’s always struck me as a fascinating hypothesis.

Unfortunately I’m in computers not medical research or I’d have considered proposing a study, but I look forward to the day someone else diligently studies it and I get an answer to my personal pet theory.

Literacy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com