One of the cliches of the popular view of anthropology and human evolution is that in "more primitive" cultures the fraction of the population who are near-sighted is lower than in our more modern society. This may be becoming true, since we now have laser surgery which can do more to change the curvature of the lens without secondary damage than a flint tool, but I don't see why there should be anything in natural selection which would have led to such a state of affairs. There could be societies where myopia is a major disadvantage for an individual, but in a "hunter-gatherer" society one might expect myopia to be a characteristic which persists and even becomes more common with time.
The notion that myopia is a disadvantage seems to be based on the short-sighted notions that earlier human societies were not cooperative, that hunting was more important than gathering, and that the best hunters had the most children. That is, that one's lifetime would be short if one could not see predators, that one could not participate fully in society unless one could throw a projectile accurately to bring down prey at a significant distance, and that hunting ability is somehow related to virility and attractiveness. I think that most of the examples I've seen of this kind of thinking also assumed that men were hunters and women gatherers... and perhaps that bad eyesight could therefore be better tolerated in women than men.
In fact, one can find feminist essays which claim that agriculture was invented by women because women were the "stay at homes" with the kids. This seems to presuppose that men who could not or did not participate in hunting did nothing but lie around on stone couches drinking bush beer and watching low-brow TV all day. What about the possibility that men also participated in gathering and the development of agriculture and women hunted? Apparently some feminist essay writers have trouble breaking free of modern-day sex role stereotypes.
Given that some men were not hunters, it's reasonable to assume that in an early society those individuals still did something to contribute to their own and their fellows' survival such as participating in gathering of food (and invention of agriculture), taking care of children, learning the local lore, and perhaps exploring the natural world around them. Good long-distance eyesight is not a prerequisite for participating in society unless playing ball games is a cornerstone of the culture. It seems reasonable to assume that individuals had various skills and talents even in early human society and that a range of "careers" were available to the members of the society.
Both in hunting and in gathering, intelligence, analytical skills, and good memory are important. In hunting one might think of the moment of throwing the spear as the most important part (possibly a peculiarly male point of view derived from similarities between throwing and sexual ejaculation) but finding the right place to hunt, knowing how to arrange the hunting party to work efficiently, and knowing how to butcher the corpse of the prey also have value in helping a group survive and prosper.
In helping a group grow in population, all may participate. There is perhaps a tendency to think of the myopic as at a reproductive disadvantage relative to the "mighty hunters" with hawk eyes and mighty hurling muscles. However, those nearsighted dweebs of their day might have been in much closer daily contact with women (assuming for a moment that women were on average less likely to hunt) and had more opportunities for sexual contact with women than their "Big Man on the Veldt" counterparts. Even if both men and women hunted equally, the ones with the most time and opportunity for "making the two-backed beast" would have been those not spending most of their time on the run, i.e. not the hunters. Which would you rather have for a partner, and individual who spent days running, throwing projectiles, and slicing up dead animals or someone who worked day to day at exploring the environment with tongue and fingers while foraging for food?
However matters worked out in stone-age boudoirs, once humans formed a society, their survival depended on their ability to help and support and ultimately to trust one another. Protection from predators and provision of a food supply which could survive shortages of either animal or vegetable prey depended on the work of groups of people, efforts directed toward a common end. In today's American culture, where long-sighted athletic throwers of projectiles might indeed have a reproductive edge over the nerdy near-sighted, we seem to have lost track not only of the fact that a wide range of abilities and inclinations is required to keep us alive but also that the abilities to work together and trust one other are required to keep us alive both individually and as a society.