A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top. Of course this is naive thinking.

We live in a world that harshly discriminates based on gender, race, socio economic background, wealth etc. And its human nature that if you don't see people like you rising to the top that you will think there are legitimate reasons and potentially just give up.

My impression is that there's less actual discrimination, and more cases of people using accusations of discrimination as a weapon to compensate for lack of merit.

A true meritocracy might be even harsher, because those at the bottom would still be downtrodden, but this time they would deserve it.

> A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top.

And that would be good why? See, every time there is a top there will be losers. Personally I think that's unavoidable but we could work a little harder to flatten out the landscape so that the various lotteries matter less.

I'd say the issue you point out is orthogonal. In an area we need more smarter and skilled people, meritocracy should be the goal. But I'm with you on reducing the real-world consequences of those "lotteries" - in particular the consequences to those who lose in them.