Again, we're limited by our binary, unidimensional, and translational
understanding of "merit" and the reward for merit. That
limited/ambiguous understanding is the root of the problem. And it's
why both Nick and Marcus are both logically right and wrong.
As long as something so base/universal as money is the foundation for
it, meritocracy will be vapid or utopian, perhaps both. What we need is
a more applicable understanding of merit and reward, fleshed out by
quantitative, experimentally selected models of humans and their
environment. Anything else is just more bloviation.
On 04/11/2014 01:03 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 13:35 -0600, Nick Thompson wrote:
Doesn’t a meritocracy favor the children of the meritorious,
irrespective of their own merit? Doesn’t a meritocracy favor those
who disregard their families?
If the first sentence is true, then they aren't disregarding their
families. It is just happening on a different time scale. That and
having a children is a choice, not a requirement. Like smoking and
drinking are choices.
Doesn’t a meritocracy favor those who neglect the quality of their
communities?
No, if their income is higher, the community will see that revenue in
the form of taxes.
--
⇒⇐ glen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
