It's logical, but unfortunately not true. I've 20/20 vision after beeing a computer geek for 20 years and working daily (8+hours) staring at a computer screen programming for the last 10 years. So clearly computer screens don't cause myopia (although they might accelerate (or decelerate) it in combination with other factors).

Yeah same here. My friend wears glass and explained after he got his new prescription glasses that he could see in 20/20 again. We did a test because I was curious and I could still see much much better than him even with his new prescriptions. I've probably spent at least 8 hours every day for the last 15 years looking at a screen (often not in the best of light either) and my eye sight is great.

Agreed, programming professionally for 18 years: 20/15 vision

How can a sensitive organ like the eye keep on taking the sustained stress of bright sunlight and UV radiation?

I would suspect that it's because they've evolved to take the stress, since we live on a planet that orbits a reasonably bright sun.

The outdoors on a sunny day is an order of magnitude brighter than even a well lit office or a computer screen.

Are you a farmer? In the tropics? What about sustained sunlight in the open is not stressful? I live in a very hot climate and my eyes are very sensitive to the harsh sun. It's a bit more than obvious you'll have eye disease and your eyesight will deteriorate faster if you take direct sunlight for hours a day. Much worse than blue light, maybe, but much less common for white collar workers.

Your comparison is unfair unless you think the working class have it easy in developing countries.

I've heard this kind of argument a number of times before... but I really don't understand what foundation it grows from.

Our organs generally do not take "breaks", with the primary exception being our brain. Hearts don't take power-naps, skin doesn't... I dunno, stop being skin? Your digestive system may seemingly reverse course at times, but it essentially never stops. Why is it such a common belief that [organ X] obviously needs to take a break and that'll fix things?

It's being proven that fasting is very beneficial. What about that analogous situation don't you understand, exactly? Suggesting the skin and heart would have undergone natural selection to need breaks from their normal functioning is intellectually disrespectful or plain stupid. Some species actually do change skin, but apparently not so easy for monkeys. You also ignore sexual selection in that case.

>proven

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Even with fasting it's not like it (or the bacteria in your gut) stops, it just changes for a bit.

Nutrition "science" is currently most-accurately applied with scare-quotes intact. Much can be learned and life can be improved by available information, but practically nothing is proven concisely. Broadly I agree with you - light fasting appears mostly beneficial from what I've seen - but under no circumstances can you accurately claim it is proven, and even "tangentially beneficial" / "being proven" is overwhelmingly up for debate.

And tbh I'm not sure how molting jives with sexual selection. Maybe? But how in the world do you prove that's relevant in humans?

Screen blue light is much, much less intense than the blue of the sky.