Because when the ratio is near zero, the number of Bitcoins in circulation is small. It is so small, that some discovered dormant wallet can be huge by comparison, which can have a drastic effect on the wealth of all current users of Bitcoins. There is no way to know what might happen, but it is certain that it could happen. Because it is certain that there is extreme uncertainty when the ratio is near zero, there is little inclination to put faith in Bitcoins.
But conversely, when the ratio is much larger than one, as it is now and as it is in the beginning stages of any protocol that does not allow reclaiming of inactive wallets, then we operate with the knowledge that most coins are not lost, and thus can be put into circulation.
This is not difficult, but it is important to understand.
Shit. I had a whole reply typed out, but the stupid forums limits the posting rate, and I managed to lose it while going back to try again.
The short version is that I now understand your point.
But I don't necessarily agree that instability is inevitable. Holders of unusually large wallets from days past will have an incentive not to crash the system. And as coins are actually lost, the increase in value of the remaining coins will give an incentive for people to recover coins that aren't actually lost, but merely hiding, keeping the ratio of "thought lost" to "actually lost" at a reasonably low level.
So, yes, over time, the loss of coins could cause uncertainty, which could cause instability. But I don't think that those are inevitable.