[xlayn]

Nice catch, there are two parts in trying to support my theory, first included in my post:

As we get older more and more energy would be used on preservation (read it as fix damage and less efficient process as result of age), therefore shrinking/eliminating everything not being used it's necessary.

The second is an entry on how our bodies are machines oriented to try to avoid wasting energy... or better said preserving it... for that part my canonical reference would be the Algernon argument:

http://www.gwern.net/Drug%20heuristics

[Noseshine]

That is just your opinion - and it isn't even clear that it means anything. I don't see any supporting evidence. I'm not saying you are wrong (wrong with what, anyway? It's so vague and empty), I'm saying it's just some "statement", nothing more. Even so your list suffers from some severe selection bias: You chose exactly what supports your idea. What about greater "wisdom" of older people? Less desire to succeed at all cost, i.e. possibly more relaxed and willing to look at the big picture? Those two are just "statements", "ideas", so just like you :)

    > The second is an entry on how our bodies are machines oriented to try to avoid wasting energy

Without even going into details about that sentence, that is a statement without a point. What exactly do you want to use it for? To show what? How?

The 1st part "our bodies are machines" is as trite a statement as it gets, pardon me for pointing this out.

The 2nd part "oriented to try to avoid wasting energy" is just as bad if not worse - if the main focus of our bodies was just that suicide and eternal sleep would be the best option to achieve that goal.

    > As we get older more and more energy would be used on preservation...

    > ...therefore shrinking/eliminating everything not being used it's necessary.

What is that even supposed to mean. Either part. Nor does it seem right (having taken medical courses such as physiology) - citation needed (after defining what you actually mean) for part 1, part 2 is completely unclear I'm sorry to say. What shrinks? What is eliminated?

[coldtea]

>That is just your opinion - and it isn't even clear that it means anything. I don't see any supporting evidence.

No, it's not his "opinion", it is his argument. And he provided argumentation why this might be the case.

It surely is not verified or fact, but it's not merely some subjective opinion.

[Noseshine]

    > And he provided argumentation why this might be the case.

You are either a troll - and a bad one - or a troll. Posting a random link to something isn't "evidence". Not to mention that he didn't say anything, he just wrote "words". Impressive you are impressed.

    > No, it's not his "opinion", it is his argument. And he provided argumentation
    > why this might be the case.

So if I argue it's no longer subjective? I think you have the wrong idea about subjective/objective.

As somebody else (jstanley) responded to a comment in another thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12364193):

    > ...for the argument to have any weight you need to show that it is true, not simply state it.

[coldtea]

>Posting a random link to something isn't "evidence". Not to mention that he didn't say anything, he just wrote "words". Impressive you are impressed.

I didn't say that parent gave evidence. I say he gave an argument -- you know, premises and logical steps that can be followed (or refuted) to determine if something is true or not.

>So if I argue it's no longer subjective?

No, if someone puts forward an argument, it's by definition not subjective. An argument is something that can be evaluated.

Maybe you conflate arguments with opinions?

Of course an argument might be based on a subjective selection of premises, but that's beside the point. One can always refute the argument by pointing to issues in either its logic or its premises.