It'll do both. On the one hand, there'll certainly be some people who like the convenience VR brings. The possibility of visiting a virtual museum without leav

It'll do both. On the one hand, there'll certainly be some people who like the convenience VR brings. The possibility of visiting a virtual museum without leaving the home or (in many places) having to pay any entrance fees or what not. Some uses of VR (as the article referenced in the link says) will act as alternative ways to learn about the past. Like by experiencing historical artifacts and structures as they were thousands of years ago. But at the same time, a lot of people go to museums because they want to see the 'real thing'. They don't want to see a 3D picture or hologram of a vase from a few thousand years ago, but the actual vase from said time. Or the actual sarcophagus/mummy of a long dead Egyptian pharaoh. And at the end of the day, to these people, VR is 'fake'. Like TV, movies, literature or video games are. In fact, it's best not to compare VR and museums with the internet and libraries, but with museums and recreations of historical sites. Because the latter exists. There are lots of places where you can say, experience life in a small village from Biblical times. Yet these don't replace museums, because they're closer to a theatrical performance than a history lesson. It won't replace museums, it'll act as another way for people to learn, and (as people say) might be integrated into the museums and even original historical sites as a way to experience things from a news perspective.