Related to: List of public drafts on LessWrong

Is meritocracy inhumane?

Consider how meritocracy leeches the lower and middle class of highly capable people and how this increases the actual differences both in culture and in ability between the various parts of a society. This then increases the gap between them. It seems to make sense that ceteris paribus they will live more segregated from each other than ever before.

Now merit has many dimensions, but lets take the example of a trait that helps you with virtually anything. Highly intelligent people have positive externalities they don't fully capture. Always using the best man for the job should produce more wealth for society as a whole. Also it appeals to our sense of fairness. Isn't it better that the most competent man get the job, than the one with the highest title of nobility or from the right ethnic group or the one who got the winning lottery ticket?

Let us leave aside problems with utilitarianism for the sake of argument and ask does this automatically mean we have a net gain in utility? The answer seems to be no. A transfer of wealth and quality of life not just from the less deserving to the more deserving but from the lower and lower middle class to the upper classes. If people basically get the position in society they deserve in life they are also costing people around them positive (or negative) externalities. Meritocratic societies have proven fabulously good at creating wealth and because of our impulses nearly all of them seem to have instututed expensive welfare programs. But consider what welfare is in the real world, a centralized attempt often lacking in feedback or flexibility, it can never match the local positive externalities of competent/nice/smart people solving problems they see around themselves. Those people simply don't exist any more in those social groups! If someone was trying to get pareto optimal solutions this seems incredibly silly and harmful!

With humans at least centralized efforts don't ever seem to be as efficient a way to help them as would just settling a good mix of talented poor with them. Now obviously meritocracy produces incredible amounts of wealth and this is probably a good think in itself, but since we can't yet transform that wealth into happiness and Western societies have proven incapable of turning it into something as vital to psychological well being as safety from violence, are we really experiencing gains in utility? Now some might dispute the safety claim by noting that murder rates are lower in the US today than in the 1960s. But this is an illusion, the rate of violent assault is higher, its just that the fraction of violent assaults that result in death have fallen significantly because of advances in trauma medicine. London today is worse at suppressing crime than was the London of 1900s despite the former presumably having less wealth that could be used to do this than the latter. I find it telling that even advances in technology and erosion of privacy brought about by technology, for example CCTV camera surveillance, don't seem enough to counteract this. But I'm getting into Moldbuggery here.

Now if society is on the brink of starvation maybe meritocracy is a sad fact of life but in rich modern society where no one is starving and the main cost of being poor is being stuck living with dysfunctional poor people can we really say this is a net utilitarian gain? Recall that greater divergence between the managing and the managed class means that the problem of information and the principal-agent problems are getting worse.

Middle Class society seems incompatible with meritocracy. As does any kind of egalitarianism.

[unfinished draft]