The intent is to reduce the likelihood of these conditions developing by encouraging exposure to sunlight and far distances as a child.

Not wearing glasses is a poor solution, to say the least. I, personally, would much rather have myopia as an adult than be unable to see or read well for years as a kid.

There’s an interesting middle ground that’s being studied: “peripheral defocus” lenses. The idea, as I understand it, is to give sharp central vision, but to blur the peripheral vision in a way that encourages the eyes to grow appropriately.

I got plenty of both of those things as a child (grew up on a farm). I still needed glasses from the age of 9 to see far away things clearly. Some people get cursed with bad genes.

There are plenty of people who got exposure to sunlight and far distances as a child who need glasses anyway.

My dad grew up on a farm, and rarely spent much time inside, still needed strong glasses all his life to see.

Anecdotally, I grew up playing outdoors on a farm, not much computer time until I was 11 or 12 or so, which is also around the time I had to get glasses with almost the same prescription strength as my father.

Either computers are quick to ruin eyesight or it was genetic.

Hence GP's use of the word reduce instead of eliminate

In my case, I'm farsighted; and while screen time and lack of sunlight can make myopia worse, there's already a genetic tendency that is being aggravated.

Farsighted though is awfully convenient for staring at screens with a good prescription - at worst, my vision improves over time. :)