I tried to look up the original parody. Apparently it describes the meritocracy as people constantly being evaluated by IQ tests. That's not really what the cur

I tried to look up the original parody. Apparently it describes the meritocracy as people constantly being evaluated by IQ tests. That's not really what the current idea of Meritocracy is - I'd assume it would build on actual achievements, not potential skills. So your reference to the parody is really quite useless. The criticism that there is no objective measurement might still apply, although I'd say sometimes there is. If cancer is cured, it is cured. "you're fundamentally more deserving than someone who's well nourished and well educated" I'd say he is more deserving because he can cure cancer - if I am looking for somebody to give my money so that he cures my cancer. I agree that everything is luck. But I still want the cancer gone. What solution do you propose? It seems to me the privileged people should receive even less credit, whereas I propose credit should be given for results. You can't blame the slum person for being born in a slum, but you also can't blame the rich person for being born rich.