I wonder if people misunderstand the implications of a 'merit' based culture? People that produce good product as entrepreneurs have 'merit'. Those that make bad product don't- or that's how it should be. Other values take over though, as if so many serve the interests of what others with capital want, rather than being primary producers. My point is that the only true merit system is transactional directly with product; if work is being exchanged, or employment is being compensated for with money, some time of objective ergonomic system would need to be in effect, and unfortunately that really can't work in a modern society. That is someone shovels, for example ten tons of dirt at ten dollars a ton they get 100 dollars while the guy that shoveled five tons got 50 dollars. Market values, illegal drug sales, illegal labor, entertainment industry and a zillion other things undermine the paradigm of merit. Merit at any rate means someone else sets the value of another's work. That alienates an individual from being a primary producer for-himself. In modern society it is regarded as work only when someone else pays you for it- whatever it is. That is why whores are said to be working in the sex industry.
Aesthetic values are meritorious through natural selection (i.e. handsome, large boobs)? Fundamentally that is a modern corruption of social being. Maybe that will be rectified in an ironic way when AI and robots make everyone obsolete and living on a government issued basic income. AI is the great Marxist Utopian revolutionary vanguard for the Brave New Skynet Matrix World.
