Could, not would.
My point is that if it doesn't, it's not worth having. There are dystopian but plausible future scenarios in which (some or all) people live forever but scarcity still exists. My point is that those are extremely undesirable. Life under scarcity is only tolerable because it ends, and because the embittering, emotional irritation of economic scarcity is minuscule in comparison to the much greater natural scarcity of time imposed by nature (memento mori).
If we had eternal life, or (more relevantly) the billion-year lifespans possible were we to solve aging and accidents, would the sorts of people who hold power and (left unchecked) enslave the world, do so? Or would they, recognizing their (near-)infinitude of time, lighten up and hold back a bit? The big unknown is human nature, and that I could fill pages on that, only to conclude: I don't know.
Inside that VM they can possibly simulate a paradise. Since its happening inside a computer. Resources are hardly a problem. They can retain the best parts about us. They kill all negative traits inside humans(disease, boredom, violence etc etc) and just let the VM run as long as it possibly can.
The point is Ray Kurzweil thinks, we would no longer need a biological body to stay alive.
This would be amusing for all the other nine OS nerds in the world who get the joke.