I’ve heard of near-sightedness becoming more and more of a problem with the newer generations, and this article does a good job at highlighting the science behind the study into the cause. That...
I’ve heard of near-sightedness becoming more and more of a problem with the newer generations, and this article does a good job at highlighting the science behind the study into the cause.
That being said, I’m not sure you need a scientist to identify many of the factors that are causing near sightedness: kids are given screens at a young age, and they interact less in the real world (read: outside) than in the past.
There’s always an argument about how perhaps humanity is evolving from our new reality in a way that’s more efficient, but when you have entire swathes of the population requiring glasses and corrective lenses, and in much larger numbers than ever before seen, I have to imagine that we’re stuck in a spiral of not knowing how to deal with the new problems of today because there’s not enough longitudinal studies to show that’s its regressive.
This bleeds into political issues (which I don’t want to get into), but I’ve had a theory that Gen Z was the guinea pig generation for technology, and that we’re not fully aware of the issues we foisted on them. Gen Y at least had early formative years before the Web 2.0. Today, generations are being born with no understanding that there’s another way to live, and the reliance on social media has shown multiple negative effects to mental health.
I think we need to recognize that technology is a double-edged sword, and that a growing child’s biology was not designed to reasonably handle to the tools we design as adults. Children are great at adapting, and I think today they may be over-adapting, while also missing some of the deep-thought & critical thinking skills that require the long-term focus we seem to be eroding by the day in an age of ephemeral change.
I haven't seen a good study on it, but I would imagine the "exercise" of shifting your focal point around from near to far like what happens outside is probably important to the health of your eye...
I haven't seen a good study on it, but I would imagine the "exercise" of shifting your focal point around from near to far like what happens outside is probably important to the health of your eye and how near-sighted you are.
Fair, but every hypothesis that’s being investigated can boil down to “something about the modern world goes against what our biology is meant to handle”. My pet theory is that we unwittingly...
See this is exactly the reason why we need scientists. Anyone can come up with a semi-plausible explanation and convince themselves that they have it all figured out.
Fair, but every hypothesis that’s being investigated can boil down to “something about the modern world goes against what our biology is meant to handle”. My pet theory is that we unwittingly embraced technology because it was created by science, but we didn’t wait to see the science behind whether it would have negative impacts to our physical and mental health.
The evidence for mental health effects is slowly coming to light (attention/focus, depression), and I think OP’s article is in some way evidence of negative physical effects.
Animal research has suggested that powerful indoor lights could do the trick instead.
While I know you’re not saying this is the magical cure-all, intense indoor lighting sounds like a dystopia to me, but maybe I’m just scared of the future.
Why do you think we adopted technology because of science? Why not just because it's really fucking cool?
My pet theory is that we unwittingly embraced technology because it was created by science, but we didn’t wait to see the science behind whether it would have negative impacts to our physical and mental health.
Why do you think we adopted technology because of science? Why not just because it's really fucking cool?
Perhaps I mistranscribed my thought (have been drinking), but I may have intended that we assume it’s benign because it was made by science. It’s also really fucking cool, and the novelty is hard...
Perhaps I mistranscribed my thought (have been drinking), but I may have intended that we assume it’s benign because it was made by science. It’s also really fucking cool, and the novelty is hard to deny, but a full on embrace can get you hurt.
Fire is one of the earliest technologies, and it changed the world. That being said, a full on embrace of it, and you’ll end up burned.
Then this article may bring you some comfort as it recounts all of the ways in which prior generations have bemoaned the corruption of youth by such harmful technologies as writing, the...
This bleeds into political issues (which I don’t want to get into), but I’ve had a theory that Gen Z was the guinea pig generation for technology, and that we’re not fully aware of the issues we foisted on them.
Then this article may bring you some comfort as it recounts all of the ways in which prior generations have bemoaned the corruption of youth by such harmful technologies as writing, the gramophone, school, and of course, television.
I suppose I’m much more of a “doom and gloom” predictor of the future, but the modern age of filter bubbles and targeted advertising alarms me. Unlike in the prior days of information technology...
I suppose I’m much more of a “doom and gloom” predictor of the future, but the modern age of filter bubbles and targeted advertising alarms me.
Unlike in the prior days of information technology (writing, radio, television), it either took uncommon knowledge/skill or a series of funding/approval to reach large scale audiences. There was a barrier to entry for broadcasting that maintained a certain quality of the content. Nowadays, anyone can upload a video to YouTube and reach millions.
Again, this is a double edged sword, and there’s a lot of benefit of giving communication mechanisms to the masses (Arab Spring, ALS ice bucket challenge, etc.), but I think there is a greater potential for it to be misused. Fake news and Cambridge Analytica may have influenced world politics to increase far right political leaders, Brexit, and genocide. Elsagate is a targeted attempt to manipulate young children who rely on recommendation engines to determine what they are exposed to.
I may sound like a grumpy old man afraid of technology (I’m in my 20s, and my job is to measure the digital consumption habits of people), but I do think that blind acceptance of technology into our lives is damgerous and poses risk of trading off our humanity for convenience.
I suppose I probably shouldn't be arguing grammar with the likes of Nature, but are "short-sighted" and "near-sighted" really (still?) synonyms? In my mind "short-sighted" distinctly connotes a...
I suppose I probably shouldn't be arguing grammar with the likes of Nature, but are "short-sighted" and "near-sighted" really (still?) synonyms? In my mind "short-sighted" distinctly connotes a lack of foresight, while "near-sighted" implies an eye condition.
I’ve heard of near-sightedness becoming more and more of a problem with the newer generations, and this article does a good job at highlighting the science behind the study into the cause.
That being said, I’m not sure you need a scientist to identify many of the factors that are causing near sightedness: kids are given screens at a young age, and they interact less in the real world (read: outside) than in the past.
There’s always an argument about how perhaps humanity is evolving from our new reality in a way that’s more efficient, but when you have entire swathes of the population requiring glasses and corrective lenses, and in much larger numbers than ever before seen, I have to imagine that we’re stuck in a spiral of not knowing how to deal with the new problems of today because there’s not enough longitudinal studies to show that’s its regressive.
This bleeds into political issues (which I don’t want to get into), but I’ve had a theory that Gen Z was the guinea pig generation for technology, and that we’re not fully aware of the issues we foisted on them. Gen Y at least had early formative years before the Web 2.0. Today, generations are being born with no understanding that there’s another way to live, and the reliance on social media has shown multiple negative effects to mental health.
I think we need to recognize that technology is a double-edged sword, and that a growing child’s biology was not designed to reasonably handle to the tools we design as adults. Children are great at adapting, and I think today they may be over-adapting, while also missing some of the deep-thought & critical thinking skills that require the long-term focus we seem to be eroding by the day in an age of ephemeral change.
I haven't seen a good study on it, but I would imagine the "exercise" of shifting your focal point around from near to far like what happens outside is probably important to the health of your eye and how near-sighted you are.
Fair, but every hypothesis that’s being investigated can boil down to “something about the modern world goes against what our biology is meant to handle”. My pet theory is that we unwittingly embraced technology because it was created by science, but we didn’t wait to see the science behind whether it would have negative impacts to our physical and mental health.
The evidence for mental health effects is slowly coming to light (attention/focus, depression), and I think OP’s article is in some way evidence of negative physical effects.
While I know you’re not saying this is the magical cure-all, intense indoor lighting sounds like a dystopia to me, but maybe I’m just scared of the future.
Why do you think we adopted technology because of science? Why not just because it's really fucking cool?
Perhaps I mistranscribed my thought (have been drinking), but I may have intended that we assume it’s benign because it was made by science. It’s also really fucking cool, and the novelty is hard to deny, but a full on embrace can get you hurt.
Fire is one of the earliest technologies, and it changed the world. That being said, a full on embrace of it, and you’ll end up burned.
Then this article may bring you some comfort as it recounts all of the ways in which prior generations have bemoaned the corruption of youth by such harmful technologies as writing, the gramophone, school, and of course, television.
From Slate: https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/a-history-of-media-technology-scares-from-the-printing-press-to-facebook.html
I suppose I’m much more of a “doom and gloom” predictor of the future, but the modern age of filter bubbles and targeted advertising alarms me.
Unlike in the prior days of information technology (writing, radio, television), it either took uncommon knowledge/skill or a series of funding/approval to reach large scale audiences. There was a barrier to entry for broadcasting that maintained a certain quality of the content. Nowadays, anyone can upload a video to YouTube and reach millions.
Again, this is a double edged sword, and there’s a lot of benefit of giving communication mechanisms to the masses (Arab Spring, ALS ice bucket challenge, etc.), but I think there is a greater potential for it to be misused. Fake news and Cambridge Analytica may have influenced world politics to increase far right political leaders, Brexit, and genocide. Elsagate is a targeted attempt to manipulate young children who rely on recommendation engines to determine what they are exposed to.
I may sound like a grumpy old man afraid of technology (I’m in my 20s, and my job is to measure the digital consumption habits of people), but I do think that blind acceptance of technology into our lives is damgerous and poses risk of trading off our humanity for convenience.
I suppose I probably shouldn't be arguing grammar with the likes of Nature, but are "short-sighted" and "near-sighted" really (still?) synonyms? In my mind "short-sighted" distinctly connotes a lack of foresight, while "near-sighted" implies an eye condition.
In the UK (or at least in my region), myopia is typically referred to as shortsightedness, in my experience.