No? maybe I misunderstood your comment. Everyone seems to default to "if it's not meritocracy, then what?" or they default to "this meritocracy alternative you're proposing is worse". Well, then, what's better for you? What would you prefer knowing that meritocracy is inherently full of biases?
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
No, I guess I misunderstood yours.There is nothing better than meritocracy, in my view, because meritocracy, which I believe is routinely used successfully in all sorts of domains, ensures the best people are incentivized to do the best work they can, for the benefit of the entire tribe..
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think it's been used successfully and by design, meritocracy isn't for the benefit of everyone -- it encourages actions only for the benefit of the power-wielders because they're the ones who judge merit.