I have edited this closed question to provide some details that a few commentators mentioned were missing and submitted it for reopening. The reopen was rejected and the feedback is insufficient for me to work out why. Could I get some clarification please? Or better still, the question reopened.
Let's clear up some doubts here :
Why didn't I vote to reopen the question
It's simple : Because I wasn't aware of the edit until you posted here and that I got through end-of-year-family-time downtime :). Otherwise the vote to reopen would have happened sooner.
The edit you made answered at least half of the issue I raised, which is you added constraints and therefore it gave a direction to look at.
What can you do to improve your question (and future ones)
I've spread enough time on the definition of "external" in the comments, that's in any case not worth a point of closure. So instead I'll focus more on the big issue that caused that annoying closure : The intentions. But what do I mean by intentions, beyond my short 500-character long comment?
When creating a world you are engaging in an artistic process, even if said world is very tightly set in our reality. Artists -knowingly or unknowningly- tell some "inner message" in the result. Taking the spectator's view, if you watch a movie about a virtual universe within a world, you're most likely to find some inherent questions about one's identity, what is real and what isn't and so on. Same if you see a story set in a world where characters are clearly divided in castes or with apparent distinctions (there are a loooot of examples :D), the message behind is more likely to be about ostracism, discrimination or colonialism. It's not all the time the case or the main message, but it at least entices to that.
But that's the point of view of a player, a watcher, a listener, a reader. From the artist's side, more often than not they work first with the intentions -or message if you prefer- then with how to reach that goal. They can set the goal knowingly and sometimes unknowingly, getting the direction they want to reach through pure feelings or a mix of reasoning and sentiments.
In the present question, your intentions can be deduced from the constraints. That is, you want something more believable as your world is more bound to realism than others. By limiting, you brought an area we can play inside, on top of giving an hint of your intentions. However, it could be clearer by stating the inherent intentions instead of using constraints to do the job.
By asking "what is possible" instead of "how to reach something", I think it will be a lot more hard oui-no to make this change ^^. However, it doesn't mean you can't ask this kind of question, just that you need to express your goals another way than plainly stating them. One common way is to give a way to scale answers : "I will evaluate answers by plausibility", or going further "the senses that make old humans stronger in their native environment (within the constraints) will be marked as better to my eyes". Being able to compare answers indirectly tells what is it you want to reach. It's also in fact a common way to tell whether a question is opinion-based or not.
I believe you get the gist now : the more you know what kind of answers will help you reach your goals, the more people will be able to help you in return. Plus, it also helps you ensure you hold your universe tightly in regard with what you want to tell, so it is a good training to make!
From what I see, the question has been closed with the following motivation
This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
The edit that you have done doesn't seem to do anything to solve that problem.