Why does the idea of a strict hierarchy that revolves around

>>2237139
We had it once, it sucked ass.

Hierarchy based on merit is simply superiour. Both more effective and more humane.

>>2237178
>Hierarchy based on merit
so genes then?


you don't become an Olympic level swimmer without the genes for it

Cletus and luane Marie's son has a near zero chance of advancing particle physics

because it's in direct counter to the quintessential human right of free will

>>2237139

Did you read Brave New World? Because it wasn't based around genetic determinism; it was based around a "genetic determinism" that was sociology first, where they get the right balance of alphas to betas to gammas (and so on) by literally inducing differing levels of FAS into the fetuses.

>>2237188
>so genes then?
Nope, merit. Genes are only part, albeit important one, of what determines merit.

>>2237188
>you don't become an Olympic level swimmer without the genes for it

And you can completely fail to become one even if you DO have the genes for it.

File: 555-come-on-now-1687205.png (133KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x522px

> implying genes even play a big role in how successful you are
As long as you don't have a severe defect you have just as much potential as everyone else. Sports =/= success.

Stop blaming your shortcomings on "muh genes"

>>2237255
The biggest determinant is still how successful and wealthy your parents are. Meritocracy is only a half-assed goal, not reality.

>>2237139
>strict hierarchy that revolves around genetic determinism
It's literally unscientific. It ignores a ton of major factors, including biological ones that aren't merely DNA like epigenetics and the effect of intrauterine environment.

Is it possible to create a gene of wings and literally put them in the DNA of a human?

-A high school student from California

April 27, 2010

Wouldn't that be awesome? Just like Angel from X-Men! Too bad there's no way to pull something like this off as easily as they do in the comics.

>>2239480
And what? That doesn't make it any worse than hard genetic-based hiearchy.

>Meritocracy is only a half-assed goal, not reality.
What was that even supposed to mean? We either base one's worth on what did one achieved or on what did one's parents achieved. Basing it on one's worth would motivate people to perform better, reward actual achievements and wouldn't degenerate over time.

>>2237188
>Cletus and luane Marie's son has a near zero chance of advancing particle physics

One hick in France actually did though but not in physics but another Stem field. He dropped out of school early too and only got noticed after he took a test to apply being a soldier and did superb so he got routed to that. He was just lucky he got sniped in time to get his potential noted or someone to beielve in him.

>>2239548
>And what? That doesn't make it any worse than hard genetic-based hiearchy.
No one made any claims about what was better or worse besides you.

>What was that even supposed to mean?
Your premise is wrong. Just because we espouse democracy(meritocracy) and have democratic(meritocratic) elements in our society does not make us a democracy(meritocracy).

Lastly, basing one's worth on what one's parents achieved is the opposite of meritocracy, in case you didn't realize.

File: hfjteqr332322.jpg (445KB, 1456x1673px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1456x1673px

>>2237188
>>2237178
>>2237139

You're missing the point here. The more important thing in the book is conditioning, not genetics. It's a willing cast system in a way, since all the castes are conditioned from birth to be inclined to, and get pleasure from whatever their purpose in the society is. Consider this: If the working at Mcdonalds made you feel really good and you felt as if it was the best thing for you and everyone around you agrees; will there be any problems? You would be fully fulfilled due to your conditioning, but to an observer who isn't conditioned for a specific task, you would seem like a slave.

But the idea terrifies some people, because on the surface it seems like the happy Mcdonalds worker is brainwashed, and that he should be able to chose for himself. But how is he any different from you? He only seems slave-like because his conditioning is more narrow than yours. And concerning the book, you then have the whole thing about wanting to suffer or whatever.