> At my current age (54) the benefits are likely to be temporary at best, so it's just not worth the risk. Eyesight is not something to gamble with.
Also, if you're that old, it might mean an instant need for reading glasses (if you don't already have them).
Being nearsighed is like permanently wearing a pair of reading glasses. Given how much of my day is taken up reading vs. using distance vision, part of me regrets getting my eyes corrected to 20:20.
Indeed that is the case. I've already been wearing progressives (+2.0 add) for several years. I think presbyopia is something a lot of folks don't consider when they opt for LASIK. It might make your vision better for one decade, but then worse for two or more. Maybe people just can't internalize that age will catch up with them too. Maybe they just hope that medical science will come up with something new by then, so they can have the best of both worlds. Didn't work out that way for me, though I do think we've passed Peak Eyeglass and glasses will seem as outdated as buggywhips some day.
Also, if you're that old, it might mean an instant need for reading glasses (if you don't already have them).
Being nearsighed is like permanently wearing a pair of reading glasses. Given how much of my day is taken up reading vs. using distance vision, part of me regrets getting my eyes corrected to 20:20.