and be someone worth caring about yourself

Ofc

Westerners have out-group preference

You make the moral decision to care for someone before you even begin a pros/cons lost

I have my beliefs because I love my people, not because they deserve it
Because right now they surely don't

#NotAllWesterners

Kek

Social status is mostly genetic so meritocracy doesn't even mean what most people think it would mean (if you buy into gregory clark)

I'm always going to be ethnocentric in action and thought but it's really hard to give a fuck about people who reach new depths of degeneracy at daily intervals

Dr Dutton also has research on dysgenic qualities of meritocracy

and I realise that most of the reason I care about them is based on what they once were and not what they are and also because its helpful for me for them to be in a good condition

But if they're not in a good condition its bad for me and my descendants to even be associated with them

Imagine raising your children in any major European city today

Dutton's wife is a based Karelian

The selfish gene
Hmm

Everything is a bit selfish

Totally agree

At some base level it's all voluntaryism

Even if I went outside and cleaned up trash quietly and without reward, I would still gain the benefit of having the appreciation of everyone who saw and that would be a main motive for doing it, as an example

I just can't justify the dichotomy between individual and group selection

Personally i buy into kin selection not necissarily group selection though

They're both true because they're the same thing

Your race are just kin of a more distant degree

We're in the least innovative period in human history, meritocracy plays a role in it

and all people at a more distant degree

and then living, conscious mammals

and so on

How is the current arrangement of society meritocratic

<:sargone:576555026722586635>

Even under truer forms of meritocracy my statement is still true

Our media and states encourage the worst qualities in people as virtuous, unironically, and enfranchise the people with the most extreme personal failures with power in order to provide greater representation to failures

Division of labor was a product of meritocratic capitalism which actually hindered innovation

It was meritocratic?

What?

Nobody was inventing when everyone was a farmer

They didn't elevate the people with the greatest capacities, they equalized everyone in trivial manual labour positions in order to expedite manufacturing efficiency

That's egalitarianism of a kind, not meritocracy

The age of artisanry was more innovative than current day

Yes

And it was also less meritocratic
Men were decent at a lot of things but masters of none
For the most part
Now we're masters of the most microscopic tasks

And nothing else