
Half the world to be short-sighted by 2050 - elorant
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160217113308.htm
======
krapht
Afaik research shows this is the result of increasingly less time spent
outdoors in the presence of intense light.

Going forward I think more intense indoor lighting is probably the solution,
since the burden of study and education is only going to increase going
forward.

Or, biomedical engineers make a major breakthrough in the performance of
synthetic eyeballs, which I actually think is probably pretty likely by 2050.
I'm totally ready for eagle-vision and being able to see more colors of light.

~~~
J-dawg
If the synthetic eyeballs don't arrive, I wonder if by 2050 we'll have more
options for correcting myopia. Right now we basically have 4 options, and
they're all imperfect:

1\. Suspend a lens in front of the eye (glasses). Drawbacks: condensation, not
good in rain / water sports / contact sports, aesthetics

2\. Stick a lens to the cornea (contacts). Drawbacks: risk of infection, not
comfortable for everyone, hassle of daily removal / cleaning. Deprives the
cornea of oxygen slightly

3\. Remove some of the cornea with a laser (LASIK/PRK). Drawbacks: Can be
inexact, not everyone gets perfect vision. Risk of side effects like haloes at
night or chronic dry eyes. Risk of flap dislocation injuries in the future.
The cornea may be permanently weakened.

4\. Put a lens implant inside the eye. This one seems to be less common, but
it's used for people with high myopia whose corneas are too thin for LASIK.
Drawbacks: risky operation, risk of infection and complications.

(5.) There's also Ortho-K, where you wear a set of hard contact lenses at
night which temporarily reshape your cornea, and give you temporarily improved
vision. However it doesn't seem very popular these days, and I think it only
works for low prescriptions.

I wonder if some new ways of attacking the problem will emerge. Like a semi-
permanent contact lens glued to your eyeball?

~~~
azernik
The other issue with lenses implants is that it's hard to give them adaptive
focus; you both need a nice flexible material and attachment points for eye
muscles. It's doable, just currently quite expensive and not quite at the
performance levels of the original product.

~~~
J-dawg
I could be wrong, but I think the implants used to correct myopia are normally
fixed-focus, and sit in front of the eye's natural lens rather then replacing
it, so you don't lose the natural ability to focus close up (accommodation).

However you're right, there are now accommodating lens implants which could
correct myopia and presbyopia simultaneously, or be used for people who've had
their lens removed due to cataracts. It will be pretty exciting to see how
they develop.

[http://www.londoneyehospital.com/treatments-
services/synchro...](http://www.londoneyehospital.com/treatments-
services/synchrony-accommodating-lens/)

~~~
azernik
You're correct about the ones that correct myopia, but there are eye problems
that make the lens a total loss - most prominently, cataracts. In these cases
the current approach is a lens replacement: the old lens is completely burned
out by laser and a new one implanted in its place. It's actually a really cool
laproscopic procedure - the lens is flexible and is inserted rolled up,
unfurls on its own, and then has its position adjusted by the surgeon.

In my dad's case, because an accommodating implant was still impractical, he
ended up with one eye permanently focused at infinity and one focused about
about 4-5 feet. Which works surprisingly well, because the brain is really
good at image processing, but still.

------
magoghm
I've spent most of my life indoors, looking at objects very close to my eyes
(books and computer screens), in low light conditions. Everybody kept telling
me I would become nearsighted if I kept on doing it.

I'm now 55 years old, and I don't think I will ever be nearsighted. Actually,
for the last 5 years I've been using reading glasses when I need to read books
with small print as I can't focus anymore on objects which are very close to
my eyes (that's presbyopia which comes from my age and is like the opposite of
nearsightedness).

~~~
rntz
Presbyopia and myopia are not opposite; in fact, you can have both at once! My
mother has to wear bifocals for precisely this reason.

~~~
metasean
I too have extreme myopia, but am old enough to be suffering from presbyopia
also, and frustratingly have the bifocals to prove it. While presbyopia is not
technically the opposite of myopia, it is functionally the opposite.

> Presbyopia (from Greek presbys (πρέσβυς) = old man + ops (ὤψ) = see like,
> sight > meaning literally trying to see as old men do[1]) is a condition
> associated with aging in which the eye exhibits a progressively diminished
> ability to focus on near objects.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia)

------
fpoling
We simply do not know what caused the current increase in myopia. Hypothesis
range from diet changes to too much time indoor where the light is either not
intense in general or lacks intense blue component (indoor lighting is too
warm in spectrum).

So projecting into 2050 is just a wild game as any of the factors can change
in 35 years.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
How about so much more time spent looking at phones and computer screens (that
is, things that are really close)?

~~~
fpoling
Near work hypothesis cannot explain way too many things, so current thinking
is that it does contribute much to myopia. Consider, for example, very rapid
rise of myopia among Eskimo people after they started to adopt Western
lifestyle. Before that they did a lot of close work like sewing or working
with skin in bad light without causing myopia.

~~~
coldtea
> _they did a lot of close work like sewing or working with skin in bad light
> without causing myopia_

Those involve close but shifting focus points. Not a static plane, like a
screen.

~~~
fpoling
Currently there are no data that indicate that starring into close screen
contributes to myopia alone. In fact if that hypothesis of lack of blue in
indoor lighting that presumably makes it much harder for eye to focus is true,
then starring under indoor lighting to the screen could be even protective as
the screen has more blue light than a typical indoor light.

In light of that (pun intended) one may need to be careful with twilight-like
applications for smartphone that suppose to help with sleep by switching off
blue pixels. It could be that while doing so they cause extra risk for myopia.

~~~
conceit
We have no data that muscles cannot hold a specific tension for a long time or
that frequent monotonous strains can lead to malformation of the muscle? Sure,
lack of blue light might also contribute, but the overall amount of blue in
any artificial commodity lighting doesn't rival the sunlight.

~~~
fpoling
It is not the amount of light but rather spectral changes that may be
responsible for myopia,
[http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2127682](http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2127682)

------
hanniabu
This year I've spent more time on a computer than one should. Previously I
wasn't much on the computer and was out and about but this year I've spent
probably about 14 hours a day on the computer (working at home). I can attest
that in this year my eye sight has worsened almost 100% due to this. I hadn't
noticed until about a month ago when I went on a long drive (normally didn't
get out much b/c I worked from home) and I realized I was having a real
difficult time driving because I couldn't really focus. It's like starring at
a screen ask day with constant depth weakened my eyes ability to focus on
different depths. The whole time I was driving, it felt like I was starring
blankly even though I was actually trying to concentrate on certain things,
like going from looking at the car in front of me to the traffic ahead. The
whole time felt like I was just starring at a flat surface even though I
wasn't.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
There's a good chance that that's actually caused by something else, and the
nearness to increased computer time is just a coincidence. You should see an
eye doctor, if you haven't already.

~~~
conceit
Yeah, like the diet that accompanies 14 hour sessions sitting before a screen.
But I wouldn't take advise from anyone saying 'that that' unless that that
that's a stutter ;)

~~~
mikewhy
But the parent said "that that's", which is a valid thing to say.

~~~
conceit
I know it's as valid as 'off of' but that's American. I'm sure, it's valid,
I'm just not sure it's valid to say that that's valid. Am I being redundant? I
wasn't under the impression you'd notice.

------
J-dawg
Myopia has a large genetic component, but genetics cannot explain the recent
rapid increase in myopia, so there must be a pretty strong environmental
component as well.

But we're only just beginning to understand what that environmental component
might be. As others have mentioned, studies from Singapore have found that
time spent outdoors matters more than close work. (And close work might not
matter much at all).

Nobody is yet able to predict how myopic a specific person will be.

However, it might be sensible to start testing babies for the genes that
influence myopia, so that we know to take extra care of the environmental
factors for those children. Holding school classes outdoors, where the climate
permits, would be a pretty low cost intervention. Actually, why not do that
for everyone?

------
amelius
If we all started wearing VR goggles with the focal point at infinity, could
this trend be reversed?

Anyway, it would be a good reason to use a virtual desktop at infinity instead
of a real one at 1ft distance.

~~~
kazinator
The idea that focusing close causes myopia is called the "near work
hypothesis" (by the Wikipedia page on myopia): "while an association is
present it is unclear if it is causal."

It's probably bad to keep the eyes focused at one distance all the time,
whether it is infinity or 12 inches.

------
peter303
China once mandated periodic eye relaxation exrcises in its classrooms. I have
no idea whether this was scientifically studied tomhave worked at all

------
brandonmenc
By 2050 everyone will have implantable lenses, so it won't matter.

------
fideloper
Who's got the startup selling to this growing market?

~~~
jarsin
donald trump

------
yogthos
If there are are still humans around by then. :)

------
janzer
Short sighted? Clicking on this article I thought it was going to be some half
in jest article about not adopting long term sustainable policies. I've worn
glasses for myopia since I was 9, have been at a number of ophthalmologist
conferences, and have otherwise been somewhat more exposed to the field of
optical medicine than average. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've
seen the term short sighted used instead of near sighted for myopia.

The original article seems not to use either term but sticks with myopia as
would be expected. I'm guessing this is a reporter mistranslation of the
medical term?

The original paper is "Global Prevalence of Myopia and High Myopia and
Temporal Trends from 2000 through 2050" and can be found at
[http://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2816%2900025-7/...](http://www.aaojournal.org/article/S0161-6420%2816%2900025-7/fulltext)

~~~
grillvogel
what is the point of this comment

~~~
civilian
In America, short-sighted means you think in the short term or don't think
ahead. So a short-sighted person would accidentally double-book friday lunch,
and is only focused on the current quarter's profits.

~~~
alextgordon
So "short sighted" is a metaphor in BrE but an idiom in AmE.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
At least one dictionary I have at hand says:

myopic |mʌɪˈɒpɪk| adjective short-sighted. • lacking foresight or intellectual
insight: the government still has a myopic attitude to public spending.

------
kazinator
More succinct:

50% 20/50 by 2050

~~~
iWannaPlay
2050: 50% 20/50

------
kaspm
The world is already short-sighted (e.g. Climate Change)

~~~
conceit
Ha!

------
andrewclunn
Couldn't this just be the result of people living longer? I mean the trend
likely won't be extrapolated out.

------
product50
Hopefully evolution takes care of this eventually?!

~~~
coldtea
Evolution "takes care" of things like this in the span ranging from millennia
to hundreds of thousands of years.

And it might even decide to "take care" of the wrong thing, e.g. wipe out the
human race in favor of the more resistant cockroach overloads.

~~~
coldtea
Overlords (damn, I always make tons of typos on HN).

