Well it's not me downvoting you, I disagree with your perspective but in a friendly way.

I understand the arguments in favour of simulation hypothesis but I don't find them convincing compared to the alternative explanation. Let me put it this way.

1. There has to be a base reality somewhere, even if simulations are made they must at least start in some form of naturally occurring reality (unless we are in some sort of spontaneously generated looped simulation, a super version of the Matrioshka brain, in which case you could argue it is both a base reality and a simulation).

2. We don't know how much computing power would be required to simulate another reality at the fidelity needed to convince it's inhabitants that they are in a base reality or indeed what what types of reality we might simulate

So given the choice between something which has to be true, somewhere, or something which might only be true I choose the option which is least speculative.

The arguments from the perspective of 'if 99% of sentience is simulated, you are probably a simulation' aren't convincing either, because you only get to that point if a bunch of your other assumptions prove to be correct. Or to put it another way, if I accept that there are endless mad gods dreaming of civilisations then I have to believe I am the dream of a mad god - except I don't have any proof that even one mad god exists.

Well, here's hoping some of what you predict will occur and we can talk about this again in a few hundred years.