eye heart life

September 10, 2005 8:35 AM

are we eyeglass-wearers doomed, evolutionarily?

since my bad vision is obviously an impediment to hunting and gathering, and would have left me open to being attacked by predators, if glass weren't invented, would everyone living today have great vision? for that matter, since we did live for many thousands of years without vision aids, why did bad vision keep getting passed down instead of those poor-visioned souls being deleted from the gene pool?

posted by yonation to Science & Nature (12 answers total)

Previously, on Ask Metafilter...
posted by Gortuk at 8:49 AM on September 10, 2005

Well covered in the last thread, I think, but it's worth noting that news reports this week have covered some findings suggesting that evolution isn't through with us yet. In particular, the brain may still be evolving (NYT link, reg required, use bugmenot, etc.). Eyesight isn't likely among the most important survival factors these days, but natural selection can still apply to things like intelligence, resistance to disease, and the other thngs that determine ability to survive in the modern world.
posted by Zonker at 9:41 AM on September 10, 2005

The older thread is a good one - I find most convincing the following points:

1. Bad eyesight is not always genetic - sometimes eyesight deteriorates throughout childhood and adulthood (as m_b and troutfishing pointed out).

2. The interplay between genes is more complex than popular evolutionary psychology and biology often make it out to be. Our sub-optimal eye genes may be linked to other genes with other effects - it's hard to create a history of only a single trait.

More generally, I would say that there's more, and probably has always been more, to human life than simply hunting, gathering, and mating. This is a hopelessly reductive view and it pretends that there was a time when people just 'were' - every man to himself, with the women sitting in the cave waiting to mate. This is a thought-experiment, not a plausible scenario for what human life was like.

I would imagine that, just as now, a given community of human beings had individuals with a wide variety of skills and inate talents. That's why there are still smart people, dumb people, tall people, short people, fast runners, slow runners, and so on.
posted by josh at 9:50 AM on September 10, 2005

yup--it's the other skills that allowed our poor-eyesighted ancestors to thrive anyway.
posted by amberglow at 10:01 AM on September 10, 2005

Who else would procreate with the ugly (they need love too). Watch the current sci-fi television shows and spot the spectacle wearers. We'll be there for a long time.
posted by tellurian at 10:14 AM on September 10, 2005

I can say that when I go into the Rockies, and spend a week backpacking in the wildnerness, my glasses are nothing but a nicety. I'd get by just fine without them. I've grown accustomed to seeing great detail, but it is not necessary.

In our modern society, I use my glasses to read signs, computer screens, driving, etc.

So my anecdotal experience backs up the idea that bad eyesight is not a survival disadvantage. The closer I get to a survival situation, the less I need my glasses. My vision is 20/80 and 20/200, depending on the eye.
posted by teece at 10:16 AM on September 10, 2005

teece writes "The closer I get to a survival situation, the less I need my glasses."

Ain't that the truth... when I had my big car accident it took me 10 minutes to notice that my glasses had been whipped right off my face. That's adrenaline for ya.
posted by clevershark at 10:21 AM on September 10, 2005

Have you done a lot of hunting and gathering today? On the plains? Where you have to see long distances?

Or did you maybe do a lot of reading and fine detail work today? The kind of thing nearsighted people can do for a long time without getting eyestrain?
posted by Capn at 10:41 AM on September 10, 2005

Tribes/teams are stronger than groups of individuals, and they not only tolerate deficiencies (to a point), but they require them for the hierarchy. A group of constantly fighting alpha males won't function. Following the leader is more important than good vision. Just mind your place in the pecking order, rely on his vision, and he will protect you from evil, right? Your job is to clean up the mess after the hunt/war. Adaptive fictions (read: religions) have evolved (and bad eyesight is tolerated) because tribal survival trumps perfection, truth, and justice.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:31 AM on September 10, 2005

Is the hermit crabs doomed evolutionarily?

Of course not. The physical and social environment that we create around ourselves can have just as much impact on our darwinian success as genetic traits do.
posted by furtive at 11:57 AM on September 10, 2005

Response by poster: thank for the comments. missed the earlier q.
posted by yonation at 2:39 PM on September 10, 2005

I have worn glasses since jr. high and my visual acuity sucks big time. I was so nearsighted I needed to hold a book within 10 inches of my face to see it clearly. In spite of this I went for a period of years w/o glasses or lenses. I worked the Bates Method (Huxley a big fan) sporadically. I would have flashes of absolutely clear vision- freaked me out.

Visual acuity is over rated. In neither of these cases was I seeing sharply.

Hiking with a friend who would not stop ragging on me for being without glasses, I reach down and pick up a camera she walked by without seeing.

I am in the grocery store looking for the Hereford tortillas in the refrigerated case. Some guy with glasses is pawing thru the 6-8 feet of tortillas so I can't get right up close to find them. So from 5 feet away I relax and do a little scanning. After a moment I am able to reach past the dude and grab the second to last package of Hereford tortillas. The guy tells me,"Good eyes!"

I suspect that some of those great hunters referenced in the other thread were not relying on visual acuity to hit their targets.
posted by pointilist at 8:04 PM on September 13, 2005