There's something ideologically wrong with having a singe lever to control multiple engines. The primary reason for having multiple engines in the first place is for redundancy, perhaps the reliability of jet engines is such that manufacturers feel the need to take it to the next level and letting the engine management computer (fadec?) manage each Bunsen burner and the parameters that go with running it.
Under normal operating conditions, giving the responsibility of the management of the burners to the IT nerds (ok, maybe I'm being harsh, the engine developers) can realise new efficiencies and operating envelopes beyond the abilities of a mere pilot. Heck, it may even be able to compensate for the weight of a pilots watch. One immediate advantage I can see is the ability for the engines to augment stability when reverse thrust is engaged - all computer controlled of course, and all pre-programmed beforehand in a lab.
But there's the rub... computers as we know are well known to fail miserably, even catastrophically, for reason that are later revealed to be obscure and well hidden from those in command and control.
It shouldn't be that way. In my mind the single lever facility should be an option that is available to exploit conditions when they are favourable, and an ability to disengage that facility and revert to manual override should always remain to maintain command and control, and ultimately safety.