[pervycreeper]

Regardless of its origin (cf. the etymological fallacy), the term has come not to mean "rule by the adept", but rather rewarding accomplishment and efficiently using people's talents. It is a worthwhile ideal to strive towards regardless of how 'fair' things are in the real world. The complaints about the term are very far fetched, and require a huge number of ideological assumptions to even make sense.

[jordigh]

What if people cannot acquire those talents because of social disparities? How does meritocracy help them?

[pervycreeper]

>How does meritocracy help them?

I was tempted to give a perhaps too glib response that it allows them to live in a world where they might possibly be able to benefit from the advances wrought by the more talented, but that doesn't seem to get at your underlying concern.

My personal belief is that those who lacked the opportunities to develop themselves still deserve to live with dignity and full moral consideration, but that doesn't mean we should give them awards or accept their pull requests necessarily. Furthermore, if one apportions them a scarce resource at someone else's expense, I would consider that to be unjust.

[Goronmon]

>What if people cannot acquire those talents because of social disparities? How does meritocracy help them?

It doesn't, but I don't think it should. Instead we should try to correct those social disparities.