Society tends to build systems that adapt to the “weakest link,” thereby artificially maintaining inefficiency. When we glorify (or simply endlessly pity) mediocrity, we strip motivation from those who have the potential and desire to strive for excellence.
The illusion of “equal starting positions”
Everyone has opportunities, but the willingness to utilize them has never been equal. When we believe that society must compensate for an individual’s unwillingness to learn or lack of ability, we are effectively punishing those who have invested their time and utilized their intellectual capacity. In a meritocracy, reward belongs to the one who creates value, not the one who “needs.”
“Balancing” as the opposite of progress
Attempts to “raise the level” for everyone at once lead to the solidification of a mediocrity standard. Education and work systems are often eased so that even those without the necessary cognitive capacity can fit in. As a result, we obtain a system that “smooths” everyone down to a safe, unproductive average level. It is a dead end. Like participation medals in an event, but not for a result actually achieved.
Responsibility to oneself, not the system
The solution is not to “educate everyone to a certain level,” but to allow people to take full responsibility for their own limits.
- If a person has high intellectual or physical potential, the system must provide an environment where they can “fly,” rather than “braking” them to wait for those who cannot keep up.
- If a person has limited potential, one must be honest – their role in the economy and society will be appropriate to their abilities. Attempting to force a role for which they are not suited creates only disappointment, stress, and inefficiency.
New ethics: competence as value
We must abandon the idea that “everyone is entitled to everything.” In the future world defined by artificial intelligence, your opportunities will be determined by your ability to demonstrate real competence.
Ending the glorification of mediocrity does not mean cruelty, but rather honest treatment. Honesty to oneself and to society requires acknowledging that not everyone can be an engineer, analyst, or innovator. However, what we can and should drive is the utilization of each individual’s natural (innate) abilities.
Instead of saving those who refuse to learn, we must focus on an environment that rewards those who are the greatest cogs of progress.
Whether this approach – a complete abandonment of artificial “balancing” – is the path to societal growth, or whether it could create too great a social gap that would destabilize society/the state in the long term? Only time will answer this question.