The problem with meritocracy is those who are sorely lacking in merit, those with an overabundance of it, and those who insist in denying the reality, however obvious, of the differences between between two.
The denial of natural talent on the right just insists that the differences come down to culture and effort, despite that not being true.
The left blames a conspiracy of the upper classes to preserve ones inherited wealth and status by oppressing those below them, along with a conspiracy of the White race to preserve their inherited privileges by oppressing other races.
Both are wrong, but cannot bring themselves to see the truth, that all men are not created equal, nor are all groups of men equal to one another.
Natural genetic talent must be made forefront in our discussions of inequality, genetics gives us the advantage of being able to identify which specific genes lead to success, and refute this insanity of blaming the environment for the results of inherent differences, both among individuals and groups.
It's also important to acknowledge that genes which lead to success vary over time. 200 years ago the genes which lead to a median IQ of 100 chewed up an awful lot of pressure resources and did jack all to extend median Caucasian lifespans in Africa beyond 18 months. The brain is incredibly resource intensive. Meanwhile, the genes which lead to a median IQ of <80 survived pretty darn well in Africa. Those extra IQ points weren't effective in a resource and disease rich environment.
Genes adapt to environmental pressures. They also adapt slowly, and the modern era of technology where IQ is king is only an eyeblink old in the grand scheme of human history.
(post is archived)