What is there more demand for than the return of departed loved ones?
Well, as you yourself outline in the article people have basically just accepted death. How much funding is currently going into curing aging? (Which seems to be a much lower hanging fruit currently than any kind of resurrection.) Much less than should be IMO.
when specifically any of this is achieved will be irrelevant to people living now, if we will indeed live again.
Sorry, but this just seems like a generic counterargument. The key word here is “if”.
Reversing entropy is a very shaky idea, as other comments already outlined in more detail.
The simulation hypothesis seems like a hotly debated topic, but there does not seem to be an accepted way to even put probabilities on it, depending on your priors you can get answers anywhere between 0 and 1.
Also taking this to its logical conclusion just seems nonsensical. If we will be resurrected later anyway, why care about anything at all right now? I think much of EY’s writing on many-worlds can be applied here. (The idea of being resurrected in many different possible worlds seems quite similar.)
First, to say something positive, I like how you phrased the idea about technology just being a product of demand. (This might be obvious, but I don’t think I have seen it stated like this so far. It seems like a good framing for explaining the huge disparity between the levels of technological development in different domains.)
I am skeptical of the claims about Starship and driverless cars. You are talking about them in past tense as if they have already achieved their claimed capabilities. I have no doubt that practical mars vehicles and driverless cars will be developed eventually, but I am skeptical that the hard parts of those problems have already been solved.
As for the rest of the article, I just don’t understand where you want to go with the ideas. I mean if we assume the simulation hypothesis, everything (computable) becomes possible, why focus on this special case of human resurrection?