5 ms·

Myopia is a risk factor for floaters, retinal detachment, and glaucoma. It's objectively not neutral, despite that glasses exist. Glasses are also inconvenien

Myopia is a risk factor for floaters, retinal detachment, and glaucoma. It's objectively not neutral, despite that glasses exist. Glasses are also inconvenient, cost money, can be lost or broken, and don't cover the entire field of vision, and contacts have their own problems.

jart 4y ago
I can't believe you're serious. I wear glasses and there's nothing wrong with me. Last thing I want is to live in a world where I'm pressured to be genetically engineered for having the wrong kind of eyes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
  I wear glasses and there's nothing wrong with me at the moment either, and I hope it keeps being that way, but the augmented risks mentioned by the GP are real and well-attested. In fact, many ophtalmologists consider LASIK and their ilk to be cosmetic surgery, because it gets you rid of the glasses, but not of all the other consequences of myopia.
- kortilla 4y ago
  If there’s nothing wrong with you, why are you wearing glasses? I wear hearing aids because my hearing is flawed. I would be ecstatic if there was a genetic solution.
  - jart 4y ago
    I'm sorry to hear about your hearing. From what I've heard, hearing aids help but they are not a satisfactory solution. So if you still feel something is wrong, then the way you feel is what matters. There's nothing wrong with my vision because I wear glasses. I like my glasses. I consider glasses to be a satisfactory technology that solves the problem I used to have before I got them. I see myself as one with the technologies I use. If someone thinks I should adopt the GE technology instead of the optical glassware technology, then fine, but no one has the right to tell me I have a problem. Ideally what I'd want are glasses that let me see the things normal people can't see, like electromagnetic radiation other than the narrow part of the spectrum for visible light, such as infrared, gamma rays, and hidden colors, etc. Superhuman vision would be real progress imho and a whole lot less creepy than what's being proposed here.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      They are called “corrective lenses” because they are correcting your flawed vision. You have a problem you address with glasses. It’s no different than any other medical technology to address a life altering flaw. You can be happy with the solution, but there is still something wrong with your eyes. Someone offering a solution that actually fixes your eyes shouldn’t be offensive and you most certainly shouldn’t be discouraging it. It’s like someone getting in a huff about a diabetes cure because they see their insulin needle as a part of themself.
  - Sunspark 4y ago
    There is an advantage to being able to take them off. Crying babies, dogs barking, lawnmowers, etc. go bye-bye. Your body still feels the vibrations which of course is biologically stressful (e.g. constant vehicular traffic), but psychologically it is a calmer state. That said, there may be a drug to help restore some of it in a few years for some people, but I won't be first in line for it, because I'd like to know more about negative outcomes in a large population.. tinnitus risk, etc.
- gcbirzan 4y ago
  Not the wrong kind, but broken. And, while your vision might be fine, the other issues are still there.
- d_tr 4y ago
  I have around -10 dioptres in both eyes, like my father. I am also amblyopic. It is a minor inconvenience for me right now, but the risks for serious problems in the future are real. The problem, if I understand correctly, is that myopia correlates well with eyeball elongation, which puts stress on the retina, thus sharply increasing the risk of macular degeneration and retinal detachment as you get older. Other complications are also more likely to occur. I was only vaguely aware of this until recently but I am a bit worried now and going to a doctor soon to asses the situation and manage the risks if possible.
  - jcims 4y ago
    Not to scare you or anything but to just reinforce the fact that you should incorporate regular retinal exams. My daughter is also around -10 and in a recent eye exam they did the retinal imaging thing (that i always thought was just an upsell scam). Well they found what they thought was retinoschisis. They referred her to a retina center (which of course took nearly a month). At that exam they found that her left eye had substantial retinal detachment and scheduled her for a scleral buckle procedure the following Tuesday to avoid any further progression. Aside from seeing some sparks every now and then there were no symptoms. Ocular migraines run on both sides of the family so she wasn't too worried about it.
- trashface 4y ago
  You can get glaucoma later in life. I was diagnosed in my mid-40s, now I have to take drops for the rest of my life. And still might go blind. Some people with open-angle glaucoma don't even know they have it, which is why it is referred to as "the silent thief of sight". I'd definitely take a genetic cure for this if one existed. There might be nothing wrong with you now, but there is no guarantee it will stay that way.
- pxc 4y ago
  If you wear glasses for nearsightedness and your doctor hasn't talked to you about your high risk of things like floaters, retinal detachment, or glaucoma, your nearsightedness isn't very severe. Good for you that your vision is barely a real problem. For people who have a real, genetically heritable risk of going blind well before they even reach old age, that kind of research is very much of interest.

jart 4y ago

I can't believe you're serious. I wear glasses and there's nothing wrong with me. Last thing I want is to live in a world where I'm pressured to be genetically engineered for having the wrong kind of eyes.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
I wear glasses and there's nothing wrong with me at the moment either, and I hope it keeps being that way, but the augmented risks mentioned by the GP are real and well-attested. In fact, many ophtalmologists consider LASIK and their ilk to be cosmetic surgery, because it gets you rid of the glasses, but not of all the other consequences of myopia.
kortilla 4y ago
If there’s nothing wrong with you, why are you wearing glasses? I wear hearing aids because my hearing is flawed. I would be ecstatic if there was a genetic solution.
- jart 4y ago
  I'm sorry to hear about your hearing. From what I've heard, hearing aids help but they are not a satisfactory solution. So if you still feel something is wrong, then the way you feel is what matters. There's nothing wrong with my vision because I wear glasses. I like my glasses. I consider glasses to be a satisfactory technology that solves the problem I used to have before I got them. I see myself as one with the technologies I use. If someone thinks I should adopt the GE technology instead of the optical glassware technology, then fine, but no one has the right to tell me I have a problem. Ideally what I'd want are glasses that let me see the things normal people can't see, like electromagnetic radiation other than the narrow part of the spectrum for visible light, such as infrared, gamma rays, and hidden colors, etc. Superhuman vision would be real progress imho and a whole lot less creepy than what's being proposed here.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    They are called “corrective lenses” because they are correcting your flawed vision. You have a problem you address with glasses. It’s no different than any other medical technology to address a life altering flaw. You can be happy with the solution, but there is still something wrong with your eyes. Someone offering a solution that actually fixes your eyes shouldn’t be offensive and you most certainly shouldn’t be discouraging it. It’s like someone getting in a huff about a diabetes cure because they see their insulin needle as a part of themself.
- Sunspark 4y ago
  There is an advantage to being able to take them off. Crying babies, dogs barking, lawnmowers, etc. go bye-bye. Your body still feels the vibrations which of course is biologically stressful (e.g. constant vehicular traffic), but psychologically it is a calmer state. That said, there may be a drug to help restore some of it in a few years for some people, but I won't be first in line for it, because I'd like to know more about negative outcomes in a large population.. tinnitus risk, etc.
gcbirzan 4y ago
Not the wrong kind, but broken. And, while your vision might be fine, the other issues are still there.
d_tr 4y ago
I have around -10 dioptres in both eyes, like my father. I am also amblyopic. It is a minor inconvenience for me right now, but the risks for serious problems in the future are real. The problem, if I understand correctly, is that myopia correlates well with eyeball elongation, which puts stress on the retina, thus sharply increasing the risk of macular degeneration and retinal detachment as you get older. Other complications are also more likely to occur. I was only vaguely aware of this until recently but I am a bit worried now and going to a doctor soon to asses the situation and manage the risks if possible.
- jcims 4y ago
  Not to scare you or anything but to just reinforce the fact that you should incorporate regular retinal exams. My daughter is also around -10 and in a recent eye exam they did the retinal imaging thing (that i always thought was just an upsell scam). Well they found what they thought was retinoschisis. They referred her to a retina center (which of course took nearly a month). At that exam they found that her left eye had substantial retinal detachment and scheduled her for a scleral buckle procedure the following Tuesday to avoid any further progression. Aside from seeing some sparks every now and then there were no symptoms. Ocular migraines run on both sides of the family so she wasn't too worried about it.
trashface 4y ago
You can get glaucoma later in life. I was diagnosed in my mid-40s, now I have to take drops for the rest of my life. And still might go blind. Some people with open-angle glaucoma don't even know they have it, which is why it is referred to as "the silent thief of sight". I'd definitely take a genetic cure for this if one existed. There might be nothing wrong with you now, but there is no guarantee it will stay that way.
pxc 4y ago
If you wear glasses for nearsightedness and your doctor hasn't talked to you about your high risk of things like floaters, retinal detachment, or glaucoma, your nearsightedness isn't very severe. Good for you that your vision is barely a real problem. For people who have a real, genetically heritable risk of going blind well before they even reach old age, that kind of research is very much of interest.