Most people aren't evolved to resist serious strains of flu, but when an epidemic happens the next generation will be those who were. There are probably people who are perfectly capable of adapting to virtual reality worlds right now, just as there are those who can avoid getting obese despite the presence of vastly calorific foods and can avoid mental diseases despite the highly unusual (from a historical perspective) nature of modern society.
It's true because diseases kill unprepared and leave only the (more-less) adapted. So far neither obesity nor computer games were successful in killing people on the mass scale fast enough. Also, we're actively engineering the computer games to be as immersing as possible. If a 'resistant generation' pops up, it'll probably at some point engineer addicting games for itself.
So yeah, maybe technical society is a nonviable evolutionary pathway in the long run. Why should I care?
You're so far off your evolutionary track there's simply no reason not to go further.
I'm not saying live like the Omish, but we should look at our ancestors and see what we should retain, rather than change in order to make our life better.
Commenting on Hacker News is a necessity.
An aside for a moment: are you doing a paleolithic diet? We did that for a year or two while our daughter was going through Crohn's - the transition to it just about killed me. But saved her. So I know where you're coming from.
To address your main point, though: the decision as to what makes life better is yours, for you, and mine, for me - and if somebody decides their life is better because they can go virtual, well, that's none of your business or mine. I have very little patience for the ashes-and-sackcloth approach: whether it's dressed in evangelical or treehugging clothing, Puritanism just gets my goat.