I think it's likely that, when applying resources to develop aptitude into talent, there is a point where returns nosedive. Ideally, we would find that point, and use highly inclusive criteria for who gets resources up to that optimal point. Maybe the problem is the current approach is based on raw aptitude as merit. Which will be less raw for some than others. True merit is perhaps only measurable after actual talent has been at least somewhat developed. As to the moral issue, I think meritocracy could mean that that there were incentives for meritorious behavior, rather than "just" rewards. That is, make meritocracy more about benefiting society as a whole, rather than about some dubious individual right to full compensation for achievements.
Was the kid who is taller chosen randomly out of all the kids or were these kids already basketball players? You can't just find a tall kid and assume he will be a good ball player because he is tall. You can find a tall baskeball player and hone their skills though. The second situation is based off the merit of the kids playing ability, the first is based off the kids height that doesn't mean anything to playing ability. So, in that situation it is still about merit and not about a genetic lottery of being tall. Where are these areas where opportunities don't exist? Opportunities come in many different forms and a person refusing an opportunity isnt the same as them not having any opportunities.
I think it's likely that, when applying resources to develop aptitude into talent, there is a point where returns nosedive. Ideally, we would find that point, and use highly inclusive criteria for who gets resources up to that optimal point. Maybe the problem is the current approach is based on raw aptitude as merit. Which will be less raw for some than others. True merit is perhaps only measurable after actual talent has been at least somewhat developed. As to the moral issue, I think meritocracy could mean that that there were incentives for meritorious behavior, rather than "just" rewards. That is, make meritocracy more about benefiting society as a whole, rather than about some dubious individual right to full compensation for achievements.
Was the kid who is taller chosen randomly out of all the kids or were these kids already basketball players? You can't just find a tall kid and assume he will be a good ball player because he is tall. You can find a tall baskeball player and hone their skills though.
The second situation is based off the merit of the kids playing ability, the first is based off the kids height that doesn't mean anything to playing ability. So, in that situation it is still about merit and not about a genetic lottery of being tall.
Where are these areas where opportunities don't exist? Opportunities come in many different forms and a person refusing an opportunity isnt the same as them not having any opportunities.
Rename the Channel No Stupid Discussions, and live by it. . i lasted about 10 minutes. Happy to not waste 24 more.