I mean, we could fill in the details of the thought experiment to make one option more reasonable than the other. The point is that it's possible to have a conflict of interests so that reason alone doesn't tell you which way is best. It depends on what you want more or what you could live with, depending on your character, upbringing, goals, and so on.

Saying that we value "life" doesn't help us much in these situations, unless we face something like a life-or-death struggle. Only then might reason tell us how to preserve our very life. In most cases, what we face are issues of the quality of our life. And reason alone doesn't dictate which qualities of life are better than others.

I agree that totalitarian governments are bad. And if rampant capitalism ends up destroying the world's ecosystems, that would be worse.

I said "Rand’s novels boosted the American folklore about heroic, productive individualists like David Crockett." She boosted that libertarian mythos. I didn't say she made it popular in the first place.

I agree that Rand had great success in her life. That doesn't mean her philosophy is the best way of understanding that success.