3 ms·
Given the audience of this site, it's interesting that this topic has even floated toward the top. And, it's also interesting (but hardly surprising) that most
by ap22213 14y ago
Given the audience of this site, it's interesting that this topic has even floated toward the top. And, it's also interesting (but hardly surprising) that most of the comments are blindly for meritocracy.
Yeah - meritocracy sounds great in principle. And, we can agree that it's leagues better than aristocracy. But, over generational scales, aristocracy and meritocracy are very closely aligned.
Meritocracy begins first with a wave of smart, risk-taking, hard-working, uncompromising, (perhaps immoral) people who usurp the establishment. And, we certainly celebrate that. It brings a shift, and usually rewards many others.
But, it's when those same people put their children and grandchildren in positions where risks nearly vanish that we worry about. They naturally give their descendents their connections, secret knowledge, wealth, safety and other benefits. And, they unconsciously change the rules to favor themselves. And, they seem to dismiss all those elements when their spawns happen to reach similar heights. And, slowly, they begin to believe that it's some genetic component, or something innate in them, that has caused it. And, then the new aristocracy is born.
I think the article is bringing attention to this, and it's good to do so. The new rich should be allowed to let their children and grandchildren live great lives. But, those descendents should not become the gatekeepers of the rest of the world's amazing talent. There are just to many brilliant, hard-working people in the world, who aren't connected, who need a chance.
- scottshea 14y agoTo expand on your comments I think it is safe to say that the elite, whether aristocracy or meritocracy, are adept at keeping the wealth, influence and power for themselves and their friends. Some of it is innate in that they will pass on resources to their children out of a desire to see them succeed. Some of it is cronyism as they want to do good things for their friends.
- betterunix 14y ago"meritocracy sounds great in principle. And, we can agree that it's leagues better than aristocracy" Meritocracy is a form of aristocracy. The word "aristocracy" comes from the Greek words for "best" and "power," or in other words a system where those who are most fit to rule will be the leaders of society. It sounds great in principle, the only problem is the definition of "best."
- sophacles 14y agoThis may be true of the greek words, but language shifts. Now the word aristocracy refers to a system by which a class of people is in charge, and in which membership of said class is almost completely dependent on parentage. It is also of note that in this class system, membership and genetics are more important than any other factors such as wealth, intelligence, "merit" (as we generally use the term: displaying high ability and accomplishment in tasks).
- saraid216 14y agoExcept that parentage was a critical concept in the Greek notion of the "best". The necessity of membership was less important, but it was still important.
- bjourne 14y ago> They naturally give their descendents their connections, secret knowledge, wealth, safety and other benefits. The idea is that society in whole should be set up in such a way that connections and secret knowledge isn't valued as highly as it is now. George W Bush didn't become president because of merit, but because of connections and inherited wealth. A better system would have more highly valued leadership skills, rhethorical skills and general smartness and kept dofuses like him out of power.