>We will no longer have to force ourselves to long for death to get to a mystical make-believe afterworld where suffering does not exist

I'm not personally offended, rather, I'm dissapointed because this statement negated the civil nature of discourse. Aren't there plenty of other ways to be tactful that you disagree with a person's belief system?

The best way to dissuade readers from hearing you out is by closing your article bashing their spiritual or religious beliefs. Recommend you stay close to trying to answer the substance of the question presented in the title of your article. I'll admit I skimmed but from parts I focused on I didn't feel very much anything in the article approached this. For example, Virtual Reality provides an illusory satisfaction to people's wants and needs. How does that actually contribute to a person's reason d'etre? At least belief in something after drives a religious person to better themselves now, even if that itself is self-promotion in the guise of compassion. For the arguement in favor of AI, Information is good to have but it's useless without applicable use. Knowledge, information with purpose, we could suppose an AI can translate such information but how can AI help a person be happy. Happiness does not come from from a lavish or convenient lifestyle, albeit comfort is nice to have. What about the fundamentals of our human existence can such things reveal to us.