@amerika
One thing I think you're mistaken on (and you might be surprised of all the things but I don't really want to change your mind on big things we don't agree on since I want to see your point of view on the big stuff) is that not every adaptive outcome is genetic or even epigenetic. Our bodies are adaptive. If you take identical twins, and have one work out with weights every day, and have the other one sit on a chair watching TV every day, the one who lifts weights will be significantly stronger than the one who did not.
This is relevant to your example of eyesight. In China, people who live in the cities and are thus impacted by the strict exam requirements (and therefore spend all day every day in their childhood looking at something 2 feet from their face studying) are overwhelmingly nearsighted (If I recall it's like 80%), but people who are the same genetic stock in the countryside who don't sit in class all day staring at something right in front of them aren't nearsighted, and also importantly, Chinese families who move to the west don't end up with the overwhelming nearsightedness for kids born in the west. Essentially, you have people with adaptable eyes and those eyes adapt to studying. It happens a lot sooner than genetic evolution, essentially one childhood and you've got nearsightedness.
Over dozens of generations you could still have a peacock effect and genetic disposition towards that adaption may end up resulting in damage to the genepool if poorly designed meritocracy walks people towards a certain thing, but a lot of really bad things happen on a shorter timeframes than the fundamental make-up of our cells.
One of the problems with meritocracy is when the merit being judged for isn't good. If you select for passing a certain test then yes, the meritocracy will damage people over time. On the other hand, if you select for a bunch of different kinds of merit what you have is real life and you'll have the best people succeeding naturally.
The ultimate question ought to be "Are you meritorious as in are you useful? Are you able to support yourself, then your family, then your community, then your nation?" If so, then you are of merit and will reach the highest levels of power and responsibility. Otherwise you get less power and responsibility.
One thing I think you're mistaken on (and you might be surprised of all the things but I don't really want to change your mind on big things we don't agree on since I want to see your point of view on the big stuff) is that not every adaptive outcome is genetic or even epigenetic. Our bodies are adaptive. If you take identical twins, and have one work out with weights every day, and have the other one sit on a chair watching TV every day, the one who lifts weights will be significantly stronger than the one who did not.
This is relevant to your example of eyesight. In China, people who live in the cities and are thus impacted by the strict exam requirements (and therefore spend all day every day in their childhood looking at something 2 feet from their face studying) are overwhelmingly nearsighted (If I recall it's like 80%), but people who are the same genetic stock in the countryside who don't sit in class all day staring at something right in front of them aren't nearsighted, and also importantly, Chinese families who move to the west don't end up with the overwhelming nearsightedness for kids born in the west. Essentially, you have people with adaptable eyes and those eyes adapt to studying. It happens a lot sooner than genetic evolution, essentially one childhood and you've got nearsightedness.
Over dozens of generations you could still have a peacock effect and genetic disposition towards that adaption may end up resulting in damage to the genepool if poorly designed meritocracy walks people towards a certain thing, but a lot of really bad things happen on a shorter timeframes than the fundamental make-up of our cells.
One of the problems with meritocracy is when the merit being judged for isn't good. If you select for passing a certain test then yes, the meritocracy will damage people over time. On the other hand, if you select for a bunch of different kinds of merit what you have is real life and you'll have the best people succeeding naturally.
The ultimate question ought to be "Are you meritorious as in are you useful? Are you able to support yourself, then your family, then your community, then your nation?" If so, then you are of merit and will reach the highest levels of power and responsibility. Otherwise you get less power and responsibility.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 1