SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
n1
on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:20AM
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
When Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the term meritocracy in 1958, it was in a dystopian satire. At the time, the world he imagined, in which intelligence fully determined who thrived and who languished, was understood to be predatory, pathological, far-fetched.
Today, however, we’ve almost finished installing such a system, and we have embraced the idea of a meritocracy with few reservations, even treating it as virtuous. That can’t be right. Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
When the Term Meritocracy was Coined in 1958, it was in a Dystopian Satire
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 59 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:49AM
Studies have furthermore found that, compared with the intelligent, less intelligent people are more likely to [...]. They’re also likely to die sooner.
This is evolution: adapt or die out. It's a natural law, not the law of man. Intellect is a core component to survival through adaptation. Your fight is with the universe, not other people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday June 18 2016, @12:51PM
This is evolution: adapt or die out. It's a natural law, not the law of man. Intellect is a core component to survival through adaptation. Your fight is with the universe, not other people.
True but, from the article:
Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth
What shouldn't happen is that people shouldn't have the right of control over other people. Just because someone is smarter shouldn't give them the right to control those who are less smart, prohibit them from engaging in peaceful activities that don't have victims, prohibit them from earning a living by doing what they will with what is their own, etc.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:02PM
ust because someone is smarter shouldn't give them the right to control those who are less smart
Kind of hard to do when the less smart are more susceptible to believe propaganda and the moderate-smart protect the media propaganda machine when it's favorable to them, and the most smart are seen as "crazy conspiracy theorists". Thus scaremongering easily leads the lesser smart down a road of belief designed to manufacture consent for violence. [youtube.com]
It's like the Flouride debate. All the so-called "smarter" people call the smartest people idiots and conspiracy theorists for not wanting to drink 8 glasses of water a day with fluoride in it, even though the tubes of fluoridated toothpaste say to call poison control if you swallow more than a pea sized amount of the paste. Fluorosis, poisoning by fluoride, is a real thing that causes hardening of ligaments calcification of joints and destruction of teeth. [google.com] Fluoride is very hard to get rid of byproduct from manufacturing aluminum, and environmental groups prohibit it from being dumped into the environment so they sell it to people as "cavity fighting" when it's really a poison that causes arthritis-like symptoms and shouldn't be in our water.
This is just one example why the smart people should be the ones that decide things for the simpletons. Problem is: All the uneducated idiots think they're smart and dismiss legitimate concerns of corruption as "tinfoil hat nutjob speak". They're the same unquestioning fools who always believe the "scientific consensus", even when the "consensus" is totally wrong and corrupt such as when most studies "proved" smoking tobacco didn't cause cancer... That conspiracy was upheld into the 90's due to the profit motive. There is a profit motive in pushing "fluoride = perfectly safe" propaganda too.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:16PM
Kind of hard to do when the less smart are more susceptible to believe propaganda
The less smart shouldn't be permitted to control the smart, either.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings