Doesn’t that mean those who replace them are more likely to be even colder?

Why would it?

Because it sieves for those who don't give a damn about whatever values lead the previous generation to forfeit their seat. Are we not just climbing an old argument?

Hewing to this conversation specifically, I’m not so sure that the interests of preventing fascism is a goal reserved to previous generations.

The top comment’s “the H in STEM is for history” is apt here.

Speaking generally though, just because someone vacating a seat means someone else can sit in it, doesn’t mean that next person has to be any worse.

At the end of the day, many of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are showing that they’re happy to service fascism (or worse) if it serves their own goals, and history won’t be fooled about that. Let us not pretend it’s all about shareholder returns. The likes of Zuckerberg and Musk thrive on this without too much worry about what shareholders will think.