Is meritocracy helpful in the long-term? I would argue resoundingly "yes", but the problem with meritocracy is who is it exactly that decides the merit of a contribution? Currently most systems that claim to be meritocratic have systems in place to judge that which are definitely not as democratic.
This got me thinking about the motives and how the motives can be wildly different and even contradictory to the ultimate goals. It's like my new favorite quote, "Code Talks. Everything else is freedom of speech." -- who is it exactly that determines whether code talks? Currently its completely subjective, other than the cases where its totally based on how much profit the code earns.. and most things tech are equally so. So what exactly would be better?
Clarification can come from specificity. In this case a poll would be nice but its more about asking yourself in order to distill your own ideas.
I wish the world was: (pick one)
- 10x gentler
- 10x smarter
- 10x wiser
- 10x smaller
- 10x larger
- 10x more advanced
- 10x more self-sufficient
- 10x less poverty
- 10x longer life span
- 10x more connected
The only constant is change. Motivation can be influenced by how much change the project you are working on will impart to either the current generation, or future generations. The world moves slowly and doesn't care, you have to make it. So how do you utilize tech and strategy to make a difference? Good question to ask yourself, I'm sure you'll come up with a few ideas.