My objection is making this decision for everyone. So of course I am opposed to making a counter decision for everyone. From the post you are replying to: "you do not"..."make a decision on behalf of all humanity to consign us". If for some reason you were in position where you were forced to make a decision for everyone, the most ethical choice would be a decision that grants the least constraint.
And "simulation", at all, is the problem, for me. That is the ultimate and total catch. If I was born in a simulation I would still want to know about the simulation I was born in, as well as whatever I could find out and do to access, explore, and manipulate the above world which is creating my simulation. I wouldn't want to go deeper into a nested simulation, so far removed from reality. The mere thought of this is hugely anxiety and sadness provoking.
They had access to the multi-dimensional time-knife in the IHOP. And were so scared of both they swore both off forever. A fundamental part of reality that they turned their backs on. That is a part of reality I'd, personally, like to get a handle on. But I can't, because they decided that future humans wouldn't have access to this part of reality. We'd be consigned only to simulated environments.
This is not a philosophical quibble. This is a "quibble" on the fundamental purpose of (my) life. And a "quibble" on the use of power to constrain the drives of others over the personal preference of the constrainer. I don't want a god making decisions for me. I want any constraints to be an argument between humans, not an imposed condition by a (temporarily) omnipotent power.
The actual "Matrix" Matrix was objectively better than living in the real world of the Matrix. Yet Neo chose reality over simulation, as did most of the others in Zion. Likewise knowing they were in a simulation was incredibly depressing for the folks in "The Thirteenth Floor", and leaving the simulation was freeing.
> “everyone lived happily ever after (or for only a few decades after, if they insisted), each according to their own free beliefs and desires and choices, and there just was no catch, the end”
The Atlantic article I linked addressed this point. In a society there is always a catch to deciding not to exist. The catch is the impact of this decision on other people, and on one's personal valuing of selves, in general.
"These characters have spun webs of interdependent relationships based on love, trust, and generosity. Then they snip those webs because they’ve reached some sense of internal “completion” that is individualistic even though it relied upon them working with others to achieve it. Beautiful relationships do not turn out to provide unending nourishment; the pain caused to those left behind does not outweigh the prerogative to leave."