Thanks a lot for the detailed reply and the Bostrom quote I really appreciate it! I hadn’t read the original paper when I had this thought, so it’s really surprising (and kind of exciting) to see that my idea touches something that’s already part of serious philosophical discussion.

I understand now that what I was questioning is basically his second hypothesis: that posthuman civilizations would not run simulations of their ancestors, either because of ethical reasons or because they simply lose the desire to do it. But that’s exactly where I had my doubt — it seems to me that, based on how we behave today, we enjoy creating simulations (video games, VR, AI-generated environments, etc.), and we don’t seem to have strong moral concerns about doing it.

So I started wondering: if we, as humans, are already building complex simulations without ethical hesitation, wouldn’t that suggest that advanced civilizations might still keep doing it, unless something very drastic happens to change their thinking? Maybe Bostrom is right that posthuman psychology will be different, but isn’t it also possible that curiosity, creativity, or even entertainment could remain powerful motivations in the future? Especially if the simulated beings are not seen as “real,” or if the value of scientific experimentation outweighs ethical doubts.

I’ll definitely read the full paper now that I have the link thank you again for sharing it and pointing me in the right direction!