Meritocracy is a way of organizing society by rewarding or delegating responsibility based on demonstrated competence. To understand its importance we need only consider how all life evolved. Accepting evolution by natural selection as the primary vector driving creation, all life forms are manifestations of meritocratic judgments based on the interaction of numerous factors. Species evolve via the invisible hand of natural selection based on applied objective and subjective (individual and group) selection of those most fit to succeed in their particular ecological niche. Most of us intuitively accept this and believe we live in a society generally embracing meritocracy. But reality is quite different.
Meritocracy matters because it is the most efficient and productive way to organize society to benefit the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. And it is the most fair… based on merit rather than arbitrary factors as personal connections, wealth, gender, ethnic or racial biases and on.
However it is applied limitedly and this is unfortunate since it is almost by definition an inherent desire embedded in all species. It is the basis for our visceral “animal” sense of fairness. When it is undermined or compromised inter-group frictions arise along with corruption exacerbating social dysfunction and eventual deprivation (viz. Venezuela and numerous other failed states). Even experiments with dogs and other animals show when one believes it is being treated unfairly it resists exerting itself and its productivity declines. A dog trained to do a trick for a treat eventually slacks when it sees another dog receiving two treats for the same trick.
Social dysfunction or slacking leads to rising tensions which have been historical fertile grounds for the justification of coercive force by those in power. Thus in a non-zero sum (win/ win) world necessary for the greatest good for the greatest number, meritocratic social organization and selection would seem to be an essential part of our nature with biological utility being the greater good or greater chances for survival. We could not have evolved our main survival tool… our exceptional cognitive skills… by selecting those of lesser competence to procreate in greater numbers.
Thus several current trends should give us pause. Mathematical theories along with a more holistic view of humanity indicate we live in a world rapidly increasing in complexity while becoming more chaotic and thus vulnerable to catastrophic unforeseen disruption by the proverbial black swan event. Even though the rate of population growth seems to be slowing, people added to the biosphere each year are still at record highs. And these greater numbers will continue to want more of everything because they are made more aware of material wealth via increasing use of devices plugged into expanding communications networks. Also robotics and other forms of AI are making production of goods less expensive and more available.
The increasing entropy of more humans wanting more stuff coupled with expanding technology enabling greater production while consuming growing amounts of energy and resources is a primary feed to a more erratic and chaotic world. The inherent desire to consume buried in our nature drives a good part of our economy driven by the commercial mantra that more is never enough, newer is nicer and bigger is always better.
Another trend that should trigger some concern is the expanding inter-dependencies of nations and societies which historically have had problems peacefully coexisting. This is coupled with growing vulnerability due to reliance on electronic communications within and between nations where disruption could bring catastrophe.
A world with more tenuous threads, greater interdependencies, and greater numbers consuming more stuff becomes increasingly vulnerable to the unforeseen… whether it be biological infection, acts of warfare, natural catastrophes and on. Becoming more complex and chaotically interwoven and interdependent allows less tolerance for human incompetence and error. It all would seem to indicate meritocracy matters more now than ever.
However meritocracy in Western societies is generally limited to partial application in businesses and maybe to an even lesser extent in governmental and other institutions. And much of what is presented as meritocratic selection is subtly influenced by social or political influences, biases relating to gender, wealth and fraud, ethnicity and other non-performance characteristics.
This leaves three major areas important to social welfare where meritocracy is mostly non-existent even though it would seem majorly contributive to our future sustainable well being: immigration, how we elect our leadership, and programs affecting procreation.
First consider immigration. It will likely become even more controversial and challenging as climate change exacerbates the social and political stresses causing more to want to relocate. We are beginning to see what could be the tip of the iceberg as struggles over resource scarcity, access to land, governmental corruption, and a host of other structural problems force growing numbers to hit the road. So it behooves us to reconsider criteria we use to select those wishing to join us.
It would seem most reasonable to begin by holistically trying to determine the optimal level of population density that would safely lead to the long term ecologically sustainable welfare for all life. This would mean establishing a target density level we best believe could be accommodated culturally, economically and sustainably without disrupting the balance of nature and social trust that makes our lives worth living.
Next it would seem wise to select those most likely to be conducive to contributing to our greater social and economic welfare. Knowledge of our language, our values and how our society is organized and interfaces with government would seem obvious starters. And it would seem we would also look at other qualities such as skills, education, general health, and creative ability. All of this hardly enters the current immigration equation.
Then there is the quality of the electorate – likely an even more sensitive issue. In a democracy the competence of government to a significant extent is a reflection of the competence of the electorate. So if we desire more competent governance we should consider the competence of those electing it. We have been inculcated with the notion of “one man, one vote”… or all should not only be allowed to vote but all votes should carry equal weight regardless of one’s awareness of social, economic and technological forces affecting the world around them.
This appears not only unfair but far from meritocratic. We accept this “meme” despite it not being mentioned in our Constitution or organizing principles. In fact voting rights were initially limited to white, male landowners (these also seem unreasonable, unfair and certainly not meritocratic).
So what might be done. Competence is difficult to measure but a start could be a test gauging awareness of governmental process and the ability to understand some of the more important problems facing us… and then prorating the weight of a vote according to scoring levels. For example, one scoring at the 90th percentile would cast a vote weighing three times one testing at the 30th percentile and so on. This is not perfect but would seem a reasonable first step allowing all to vote while improving the general awareness and independence of the electorate. And maybe it would even encourage some to better inform themselves to increase the weight of their vote. In the long run no one benefits from incompetent leadership… regardless of sex, race or political affiliation.
Implementing this type of change will be difficult but will become easier with continuing advances in information processing and security preventing identity fraud and cheating. A big quality assurance problem would be keeping testing free of biases regarding race, gender, ethnicity or any other non-performance related quirk. Although challenging, this would seem doable since we reasonably assure tests required to drive a car or practice law or engineering are essentially unbiased and free of prejudice.
The last of the three is probably the most sensitive… procreation. We now have programs subsidizing anyone giving birth and then providing medical care and provisions for the young. Many would argue existing programs are deficient in numerous ways, but even so they seem to provide enough benefits to incentivize people to game the system. Over half of all current births in the US and many other Western countries are to mothers on public assistance and the fertility rates of these mothers are about three times those of other women.
We enable this while knowing the vast majority of world poverty stems from people procreating when they lack the means to even reasonably provide for themselves let alone their offspring.
Progressive changes addressing procreation would be a win/ win for all… the mother, the child and the society. A first step would be creating numerous family planning centers providing not only the means for family planning but related educational information. And in the interest of fairness and equal opportunity family assistant programs should be upgraded to level the playing field for all youths assuring as many as possible have equal opportunity for success. Of course safeguards would needed to prevent abuse (s.a. requiring those receiving enhanced aid to use pregnancy preventing implants or undergo voluntary sterilization).
It would also seem sensible to reconsider our approach to the contentious issue of abortion. Few would consider abortion a desirable form of birth control. But when it is necessary few could reasonably argue that we should impede or prevent women from terminating unwanted pregnancies. The problem has long been that some are inclined by religiosity or other biases to consider a fetus from the time of conception as a person of value equal to that of all others.
However, if we look at how we generally attribute worth or reverence to sentient beings throughout the animal world (and yes we are part of the animal world) we most often proportion such assessments to the level of awareness of the organism. Most revere chimps and porpoises more than rats or goldfish. From this perspective the value of a fetus would not be in the same ballpark as a creature of much greater awareness and it seems unreasonable to assign such disproportionate reverence.
But maybe more importantly, preventing or encumbering a woman from having the right to choose whether to give birth is a lose/ lose for all… the mother, the child, and the society that will end up paying the bills for her maintenance and reasonable care for the child. Also an obvious fundamental freedom in any society aspiring civility would seem to allow a person as much control as possible over the health and welfare of their body.
Again, abortion is obviously an undesirable form of birth control (ethically for many and physically for the mother) and should be a last ditch resort in any family planning effort. With better education and access to family planning along with improvements in technology, abortion should likely become a rare necessity. But mistakes will always occur and forcing a woman to give birth against her will for whatever reason is irrational and runs counter to the welfare of all.
With progressive reform fewer children will be likely to have to endure the deprivations of poverty and neglect, and society would have lesser problems dealing with the burdens of providing care and managing the social problems that often accompany unwanted or unplanned births.
It might even make sense for us to consider offering economic incentives to terminate unwanted pregnancies. This could be a further win/ win. A win for the mother because she would have access to resources she could hopefully apply to self advancement, and a win for society that would be saving financial resources in the long run. Of course provisions similar to those already mentioned must be included to prevent gaming the system.
Implementing meritocracy has been and remains controversial. Some would contend it is elitist. But to repeat we did not evolve (or did any other organism) by choosing the lesser fit to advance the power ladder, join our tribes, participate equally in society or procreate in greater numbers. This was not the natural selection mechanism that resulted in the evolution of our seemingly exceptional cognitive survival skills.
In the last few millennia practices running counter to natural selection have become increasingly prevalent worldwide and our advancing technology has enabled us to generally enhance the overall welfare of greater numbers of people in spite of this. We have had room to irresponsibly ruminate in a swill of recklessness that would have likely sunk our boat in earlier days.
Even though we still see numerous displays of human misery in areas where the most blatant examples of incompetency continue to prevail, the overall welfare of humanity has advanced. But we should think about the suffering that could have been prevented if we had better implemented provisions enabling us to apply greater human wisdom and thus have avoided some of the more horrific blunders in our past.
So it behooves us to consider how we might better our societies for a future where our environment seems likely to be not so forgiving and likely to demand greater vision and wisdom to successfully navigate. We have the technological means and knowledge to do so and need only the will. Change is always a tough sell but all major struggles call for tough sells. And I can think of no struggle more worthy than seeking a more secure future with less misery for all the life that will follow us.
Ed Middleswart
Pensacola, FL
Founder of CIRF, Center for Individual Responsibility and Freedom
Email: edmiddleswart@yahoo.com
Welcome to CIRF... Center for Individual Responsibility and Freedom 