Jump to content

Aging and eyesight


SorryNotSorry

Recommended Posts

SorryNotSorry

When my late aunt was in her 40s, she had excellent vision. She'd stopped wearing her glasses and thought her friends in their 50s and older were sick or something, because they all needed glasses. Then it happened to her... she began to squint and stare at people and things, not because she had a staring problem, but because she couldn't freakin' see clearly!

So, I know something must be going wrong, when I see these pics of wrinkled old geezers in places like the Brazilian rainforest or the Namibian desert... they don't look to be gaping at everything around them, and none of them are wearing glasses in those pics... so what gives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably have the same percentage of failed eyesight we do. I don't think there's anything magic about what more primitive tribes eat or do that saves their eyesight. Most of the technological stuff that used to be thought to cause eyes to fail (TV, monitors, etc.) has been proven to not have any bad effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are also used to having poor eyesight, other people do things for them and they just sit back and enjoy what was rest of their life. When I was in Ethiopia, there was only one child in the whole school who wore glasses and I don't remember any teachers wearing glasses, just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In areas without recourse to Western technology, eyesight problems are generally ignored - blind people learn to use other senses; astigmatics compensate a bit, and short-sighted people are found quite useful for detailed close-up work albeit crap at anything distance related (which is one of the suppositions as to why myopia exists in large numbers in early- tecnolgically advanced areas (China and Japan...) Myopia, presbyopia, astigmatism, colour-blindness - all these are found among our cousin primates, and other mammals (horses and cows are notoriously myopic.)

Soo - the moral is, eyesight disabilities just are. As a lifelong myope, who enjoys extraordinarily good hearing and especially good tactile senses, I can say I'm very glad that I live in a country with good Western technology skills - otherwise I'd be reduced to jearing and feeling my way around - not good when driving!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
When my late aunt was in her 40s, she had excellent vision. She'd stopped wearing her glasses and thought her friends in their 50s and older were sick or something, because they all needed glasses. Then it happened to her... she began to squint and stare at people and things, not because she had a staring problem, but because she couldn't freakin' see clearly!

So, I know something must be going wrong, when I see these pics of wrinkled old geezers in places like the Brazilian rainforest or the Namibian desert... they don't look to be gaping at everything around them, and none of them are wearing glasses in those pics... so what gives?

Isn't it obvious? It's likely they can't afford them. Prescription glasses aren't cheap, you know - mine used to cost me about $400 Australian dollars just for the lenses, and they had to be updated every few years (for another $400) because my eyesight worsened as I got older. Unless their eyesight is really bad (to the point where you would trip over objects and you don't even try to squint anymore because it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever), they can probably get by without glasses. What my family does when our prescriptions change is to donate our glasses back to the optometrists, who send them through into charity programs that distribute them into third-world countries to people who have similar prescriptions.

I could be wrong, but I'd say you've never had to wear glasses. :) Otherwise you would have known how expensive they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any stats that prove, or even posit, that people in more primitive cultures don't suffer from the same diseases and age-related conditions that people in developed cultures do. The except might be that many primitive diets are better than ours, and we might have a higher incidence of Type II diabetes/other obesity-related diseases. Several pictures of Asian or African geezers don't prove a thing; they don't usually take pictures of blind Asian or African geezers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally - there arnt any stats - because there arnt any stats-

blindness of various kinds has increased with exponential population increase.

Most of the other eye deficiencies seem (because we really dont have world-wide stats for humans, let alone other animals) to be steady (except when you get local disasters like lack of B12 or increases in infestations that result in blindness)-

the only *known/documented* increase is in myopia - all kinds of reasons have been put forward, none scientifically established (as a legally-blind high myope, I am *really* interested in this subject! Cheers!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just occurred to me: most technologically-advanced groups live longer than people in more primitive societies. The likelihood of eye conditions increases as you age; a population that includes an increasing percentage of people over the age of 60, say, is going to see a higher percentage of pathological eye conditions. Glaucoma, macular degeneration, cataracts, etc. -- most come about with age. Some conditions happen at any age; those occur in primitive societies. Some primitive societies may still live in non-techno conditions but when they need it, they can get medical treatment. Some others can't, and until 50 years ago, almost none could -- and they weren't counted since they weren't diagnosed or treated. The latter's probably important. Therefore, overall, it seems that there are more eye conditions occurring, but that could be the result of both increased aging of developed countries and increased medical treatment in undeveloped countries.

Not being an epidemiologist, I sure can't present that as acknowledged fact, but it seems somewhat logical to me. Whaddya think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just occurred to me: most technologically-advanced groups live longer than people in more primitive societies. The likelihood of eye conditions increases as you age; a population that includes an increasing percentage of people over the age of 60, say, is going to see a higher percentage of pathological eye conditions. Glaucoma, macular degeneration, cataracts, etc. -- most come about with age. Some conditions happen at any age; those occur in primitive societies. Some primitive societies may still live in non-techno conditions but when they need it, they can get medical treatment. Some others can't, and until 50 years ago, almost none could -- and they weren't counted since they weren't diagnosed or treated. The latter's probably important. Therefore, overall, it seems that there are more eye conditions occurring, but that could be the result of both increased aging of developed countries and increased medical treatment in undeveloped countries.

Not being an epidemiologist, I sure can't present that as acknowledged fact, but it seems somewhat logical to me. Whaddya think?

I tend to agree about the increased technology in our country, and the incidence of glasses.

However, since I have been almost legally blind (without glasses) from birth, and my father, at age 88 had sharp eyesight without glasses, I am hesitate to making generalizations about eyesight and one's age. I remember getting my first glasses at age 7 and having the world suddenly come into focus. My joy, however, was short lived, as I was soon labeled "Goggle eyes" by the other kids, and suffered unending torment and shed many tears in grade school due to this name calling. It is for this reason that I detest any kind of labels and work so hard to combat their use in our language. My boss, the director of a center for older adult activities, just told me that she was boycotting a certain center for older adults down on the coast, because of the use of the ugly, demeaning, insulting word "Geezer" that they had used in reference to one of their events. Apparently, several people called them and protested,(pointing out that they would never use a similar sounding word if they were referring to their Hispanic members), because they DID change the name! I guess it does some good when we speak out against ageism and insulting labels, as well as stereotypes and generalizations. I feel like if we want to be respected, we must be sure to speak out whenever we hear someone use any kind of ugly labels regarding age, race, gender, or any other of the "protected classes", whether they are referring to themselves, to us, or to someone else. If we allow ourselves to be "dissed", then we dont command respect, and we should never tolerate disrespect of ourselves or others, even in so-called "humour"

But I digress. I think Sally is right about the reason so many Americans wear glasses, and in many other countries hardly anyone does, is because we screen everyone's eyes in school and we have so much better technology. In many countries its just a matter of money. They cant afford so see an eye doctor! Of course out in the jungles, they would not even have access to one, except for a few volunteer doctors and dentists who have been going into third world countries and trying to bring medical care to isolated areas. I guess we should be glad we live in America huh? :) I know I would be very helpless if I didnt have access to eyeglasses!

nosex

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... in America, where about 15% of working adults don't have health insurance of any kind, new glasses can be a very expensive luxury. I know that I have to make mine last a LOT longer than they should ideally, but such is life when you are a self-employed artist. I'm thankful that my vision prescription is fairly stable.

Now, if I lived in a country with national health care it might be different, but I really don't know.

-GB

Link to post
Share on other sites
but such is life when you are a self-employed artist.

-GB

I thought that bird avatar was very professionally embellished. Very nice work, GB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to collect my new glasses hopefully next week. Now I'm not using computers all day every day, my eyesight isn't deteriorating so much - in fact I could have got away with the same glasses - but I wanted the better quality varifocals as the blurred bits aren't as bad. And they've special offer on at the moment so the photochromatic lenses I've ordered are the same price as normal lenses.

Keep telling people, I don't need them to see with - just read with. My distance vision is near perfect. :P

GBRD - even with the NHS, I still have to pay. I have to pay for my eye test (thoughonly for another 6 months, once I'm offically a oensioner I get the test free.) However, if I want varifocals, I will still have to pay. The NHS will pay only for single (fixed) lenses so anything like bi or varifocals we have to pay for ourselves (and, no, they don't make a contribution - you want specials you pay the lot)

Tan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use drugstore glasses for reading, but I've noticed my distance vision isn't what it used to be -- things are a bit blurry and I don't like to drive at night because the freeway lights bother me. I used to get irritated with people who'd say, "I don't drive at night; let's meet in the afternoon" and now I know what they mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love the peopleI'm working with but sometimes I wonder at priorities...we were moving stock this week, and one of the Mods (fittings) had glasses on, J'e and J'a were talking about how expensive eye tests are and J'a said she couldn't afford it, though she thought maybe she needed to have one...and this from a girl who has her nails done on a regular basis. Hmmmmm...nails vs eyes....which is more important??? Miss the nails a couple of visits and you'll have the money for you eye test and standard lenses. Maybe it's a generation thing.

Tan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed that not many women in my area do without probably-expensive haircuts, and makeup, also, and I don't think all of them can really afford that stuff.

I just took my reading glasses off and tried to read the screen. Can't make out a word. Luckily they're cheap: about $20 a pair. Don't know how that translates to pounds since the dollar's divebombed now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
I still use drugstore glasses for reading, but I've noticed my distance vision isn't what it used to be -- things are a bit blurry and I don't like to drive at night because the freeway lights bother me. I used to get irritated with people who'd say, "I don't drive at night; let's meet in the afternoon" and now I know what they mean.

I know what you mean, Sally. I've always been near-sighted and am legally blind without glasses or contacts (I too can't see what I'm writing on this screen if I take my glasses off), but in the past several years I've noticed my night vision get worse and worse. I was driving 60 miles home from Vermont the other night in the pitch black, and could actually see better on the dark country roads than in the villages and interstates. The headlights and streetlights, traffic signals, etc. blind me and then my eyes don't adjust quickly enough to see the dimmer road. Especially when it's raining.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Havent been able to drive at night for yonks (and yes, it is the oncoming lights.)

I think it good to reiterate- humans and other animals have *always* had eye-sight problems;

these have increased because of disease vectors etc., and while some are definitely age-related,

others are not. Just the way it is peoples-

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...