At 10:25 AM 00/02/06 , Bryan Moss wrote:
>I think a good case can be made that the last point will be
>of even more interest to our successors than it is to us.
>An SI would be on a much steeper curve than us, and its
>successor, an SSI, would arrive in a much shorter time.
>Likewise an SSI would have even more reason to worry about
>its treatment at the hands of its successor, and so on.
This seems analogous to government (and other) power transitions.
In many countries and corporations, the dethroned leaders are
not punished, but allowed to retire in luxury, even if their
successors hate them and blame them for all evils. The reason
for nice treatment seems simple - they expect their own successors
to treat them in a similar way. The next stage has all the power,
and often the anger - but doesn't hurt anybody. This actually works
to the degree that I often find disgusting - hardly any communists
and fascists got punished, even when they could have been.
That's only in recent history though...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:31 MDT