This entirely misses the point of the block subsidy. It is for *distributing* coins, the only way to bring coins into existence.
Is it desirable, much less moral, for a percentage of the world's wealth to be in the hands of some early whales?
How would tail emissions solve distribution? As whales with that much economic power will be able to acquire more mining equipment/ can afford the best suited locations and then getting more subsidies additionally. This could actually have the opposite effect, more concentration of wealth in the hands of early whales, than without tail emissions.
Absolutely not. If in 2140 when the last satoshi is mined, we look back at how all the bitcoin in existence have been distributed, then only 0.4% have been distributed in the prior 100 years, across 5 generations. That makes little sense economically.
As Bitcoin grows in adoption, hodling will bring less and less gains, forcing these old hodlers to participate in actual economic activity/ spending if they want to benefit from their wealth, which will jump start redistribution even without tail emissions.
It's also completely different from how gold mining behaves, which to a first degree has a linear emission in our lifetimes. Would you characterize gold mining as undesirable and immoral?
The problem might be the cost of mining in the future, making it too expensive for locations without close to 0 energy costs. If mining will be too centralised, a tail emission might not impact security as much, as it doesnt matter if the same small group of miners can afford to run more machines. And it might not actually be able to allow for better distribution of mining in the first place.