It occurs to me that a meritocracy and an aristocracy are both essentially about "merit." It's just different values sets. When you look at something like the Great Chain of Being, the idea was that the king was at the top and the peasants down below because they were SUPPOSED to be in those places. Merit≠works/economic activity in an aristocracy. But the people in that system still believe that people merit their stations (or, they revolt when their faith wavers). One system values economic output, the other values eg God etc (ie God put people where they are supposed to be). Anyway, very thought provoking.
Yes, in a sense my point with this article was to try and jolt people out of the assumption that meritocracy has a monopoly on true merit. Only once this is achieved do new possibilities open up
It’s doesn’t matter whether meritocracy is via the “left-wing” route of credentialism, or the “right-wing” route of IQ tests, both are myopic ways of measuring a person. Your First-Class Honours or your 140 IQ score doesn’t tell me how creative you are, how innovative you are, are you trustworthy, do you have common sense, are you a moral person etc.
This doesn’t mean no standards should exist, especially for technical fields. I’m not going to let my mate Josh be responsible for designing the electrical systems of the factory, or fly the plane because I think he’s a decent chap. However, even in technical fields, there are limits to the theoretical.
I think the answer to this is would be a return to Guilds as system to measure and regulate talent.
That's rather close to a real world observation I've made- at least from a utilitarian perspective. I've noticed that the university system trains towards analytics, at the expense of the operational mindset required to actually build products that work, or keep infrastructure running.
Don't get me wrong. Analytics are necessary, but in the old days roughly 50% of the management were elevated from the shop floor. In particular, I've noticed that analytics experience a form of operational paralysis when they don't have information which proves they made the right decision. More often than not, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Trust is the other factor. A lot of analytics are terrible at engendering trust in subordinates. One of the lessons every young person needs to learn is that people generally don't abdicate responsibility to their superior (for every minute decision) because they necessarily want to shirk their job- it's more that they are desperate to know that their boss will have their back, and won't take responsibility unless they know their boss isn't going to instantly throw them under the bus as soon as their boss complains to them about a problem.
An attitude of 'come to me with solutions, not problems' is essential, as is the emphatic statement that if anyone has a problem with the way you do your job- send them to me...
I think it depends on the job in question. For something like leadership of a country or journalism you are absolutely correct that is no metric for merit, and that the PMC is indeed a new classe whose rule is not as substantially grounded as it pretends it is, and this leads to ungrounded arrogance on their part, which we saw during Covid for example.
OTH there are jobs like airline pilot that do have pretty discernable and quantifiable attributes and filling them should be merit based. I do not want an inherited aristocracy or a race based selection process used to determine who is flying my plane even if that is a non woke race based selection process that favors white people and Asians say.
True about airline jobs. However - 'meritocracy' is a totalizing system of arranging society, meaning that it's a fundamentally political arrangement, difficult to confine to particular jobs. I think you can describe solid pilot selection and training processes without embracing a wider 'meritocracy'
It looks like you are looking for a bianary either/or that applies across types of jobs. I argue that impossible. I am not arguing against you for generalist jobs like leadership and journalism, there we do need to pop the PMC credentialing via pseduo-merit bubble as it is leading to bad outcomes. But there are all kinds of technical jobs like say engineering jobs where people are doing say the actual hands on CAD work where you do want the best qualified person for the job, and it is possible to specify those parameters fairly precisely. Their managers however should be drawn from a different pool than the business schools that provide pseudo-certifications IMO.
Now we could throw that all out if we went back to society without super highways, jet travel, the internet, etc. Jacques Ellul makes strong arguments I am open to, that the rise of technology also brings with it what he calls *technique* which is in essence the merit based technocratic bureaucracy we see today. But how many of us are ready to give up an easy technology driven life in exchange for more organic leadership that draws from skills of the whole person? What we cannot do is have our cake and eat it too, technology driven society will have meritocratic workers by it's very nature. If anything we are headed for more technocracy with "project Stargate," I think this is concerning for some of the reasons you outlined in your essay, but I am not sure there is any way to stop it, I think we are all too deep in as technology addicts.
'the merit based technocratic bureaucracy we see today'
The problem here is that 'merit' can easily be fudged. Human social organisation is unavoidably nepotistic, so that ingroup preference will always find a way to justify itself. People will be recruited or rejected by a given organisation on the basis of 'fit' or the lack of it. This is openly admitted, without shame: you may have had the experience, as I have, of being rejected for a job on the basis, 'You just didn't seem like a good fit for our culture' (I execrate the use of this word as a synonym for conformity). This was the only explanation given; 'merit' or the like was never mentioned. It's hard to imagine that this underlying principle of personnel selection and retention doesn't operate in bueaucracies generally. I don't believe Cristine Lagarde, Ursula von der Layen, Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau, Daniel Andrews (name your own example; there are innumerable others) got where they are on the basis of merit.
See also Ivy League admissions, which favour in huge disproportion applications by a certain group.
OTH I don’t want someone piloting an oil tanker unless they can pass some sort of test they can pilot a thousand foot boat safely. The devil is in the details which is why much broad abstract philosophizing misses the mark IMO.
For sure recognition of human technical competence--as demonstrated by proper training--is the only way to run technically complex systems. 'Woke' is (was?) partly informed by the mistaken belief that machines and procedures primarily, with human inputs secondary, can guarantee efficiency and safety.
I don't buy it, especially not your definition of merit. One learns, one earns the merit and position. I see such as for more sensible than born to rule, or bank, or turn a crank.
No harm in doing work that you enjoy and are good at.
I think you'll sense what I'm getting at as the series goes on: what you've correctly described as desirable long precedes the advent of meritocracy in the West. Meritocracy, however, has certain characteristics (credentialism, study culture, far longer work hours than our ancestors, etc.)
I’ve moved further away from the term meritocracy over the years. I like to use meritocratic feudalism for a couple of reasons (some which you alluded to in the essay). In short:
1. Classes are inherent to social organisation. Modern attempts at removing natural classes have either formed unnatural or inverted classes, or invisible classes - all of which are stupid because it makes for a more opaque society and confused populace.
2. I like to think of “earning” being something more than just what you can earn commercially. For example, the warrior class must earn their position in a hierarchy as a result of Valor, courage and honor while the merchant must earn their position via shrewdness & patience. The key is that they are different and thus the meritocratic element is unique to THEIR class.
I’d argue that all great feudal societies were meritocratic to the degree there was mobility within classes.
Finally I’ll say that because class bloodlines have been the thoroughly mixed over the last couple centuries, new class archetypes have emerged that will excel meritocraticically in their own dimensions.
In Bushido I define the entrepreneur archetype as almost a blend of the warrior, the merchant and the artisan. A great entrepreneur has qualities of all three (I’m not talking about the conniving big pharma ceo or Wall Street banker here - I’m talking about the Musk / Bezos / Jobs archetype). They love what they do, they are craftsmen at heart, but the know how to run a commercial enterprise, and they have the heart & instinct of a warrior and love by many of the same honorable virtues.
I’ve got a set of unfinished essays exploring this a little further. Will publish at some stage. Maybe we even discuss them on a podcast.
We need a meritocratic aristocracy but also for the arts to be celebrated and positive virtues and values to be revived those of the Medieval period which were far saner than what we have to-day.
On the lesser point, this definition of merit, of judging people by the results of tests and qualifications, is pretty synonymous with the civil service exams that were held throughout China for 1000+ years. Yet the essay assumes certain outcomes, such as the fertility collapse, destruction of tradition, and corruption of elites that one struggles to see in, say, Song China after ~500 years of rule by "meritocratic" Confucian scholar-officials who were explicitly granted their rank as a consequence of excellent standardized test performance. I'm not confident that the effects we see in the West are an inherent consequence of "meritocratic" systems and not just a uniquely Western/modern pathology.
On the other hand, and I'm surprised how angry I feel about this, is the idea that meritocracy is equivalent to "maximizing economic activity" is exactly backwards. "Meritocracy" retards economic progress. "Meritocracy" is 4 project managers with masters degrees looking busy and taking credit for the output of one software engineer. It's bloat, it's bureaucracy, it's people who fundamentally cannot "do the thing" getting in the way of people "doing the thing."
I don't want to say there's no consequences to the techie way, there are. Some things deserve to exist. The best way to bring those things into existence is an obsessive-compulsive focus on bringing the thing into existence. This is extremely productive and extremely unhealthy. No one's confused about the health and social consequences of taking modafinil for a week to crank out a key project but that guy will also do more in that week than most people get done in a quarter. That's the tradeoff.
But then there's these...parasites on the side, people managing compliance and HR and reporting. Some of them are probably necessary but they're not economically productive, they're not useful, at best they're a cost center and at worst a cancer.
And it's almost more a vibe thing. I don't like salespeople but a good salesperson is more important than a good techie and they've got the same vibe; no one cares about qualifications, obsessive, and obsessed with results over process.
Merit or excellence might still be important in your aristocracy. I will read on to investigate where it should rank in your value structure. The prodigal son should be worthy and capable before inheriting an empire. How can he be made ready if not through some trial of merit/manhood? Perhaps the answer will manifest itself with your series. Otherwise, great post.
I think the strategy of building a governing system is best exemplified in the failed efforts of the framers of the US Constitution: design a self-neutralizing system. It doth not matter what system you put in place, the psychopaths will get in and wreck it. They will pervert it to cover their real aims and the ordinary citizen will yet again be victimized.
What we need is a system that identifies the psychopath class (real and potential) and either culls that herd or neutralizes their ambitions.
It is life in a fallen world. It is easy to point out that it is fallen. But no fix will really work. That was the genius of the US constitution and the balance of powers. They both balance each other and (should) lead to a striving for excellence in their area.
David...study History. Then get back to me. If their efforts were successful for more than 80 years, we would NOT have had the Civil War, nor would we have the creatures from Jekyll Island revamping our money systems to create a de facto centralized state with a banking system that is choking all of us, bleeding us to death to support that centralized monstrosity.
Try again, Mr. BigTalk.
As far as plans, the point is moot: there will be no rebooting the system with a new OS without massive destruction and violence and I see NO ONE with the power to bring such violence.
Let us not overlook the perfectibility of the human soul: if the majority of human lives are determined by ones roots , there are crucibles where the soul turns around itself and gets rid of its dross: the monastery, the barracks, sometimes the trial of prison.
Limiting the question of merit to economic concerns today is a sign of our current moral rotting. An eloquent example to illustrate this point: The entire Napoleonic epic is a silent witness in favor of merit. But what merit are we, that of strong souls and powerful wills, not that of heavy purses.
In a word there should be a place for the merit of sacrifice
Many paragraphs here reminded me a lot of Erich Fromm. I'd be curious to know if you've read any of his works.
In particular, I think in this context you might find his concepts of the "societal character" or "marketing mentality" particularly interesting. Industralisation brought with it the need for standardisation, and so a society organised around merit as productivity suppresses many humane traits and behaviours (family formation, you name a few) in favour of a worker that seamlessly integrates with the machine.
Highly recommend "the sane society" or "to have or to be", if you're interested. You will not only find a socialist critique of meritocracy, capitalism and modern decay of religion and culture, but also a socialist critique of Marxism.
How possible is it to come up with a meritocratic aristocracy, where the aristocratic class will be very mobile in losing or attain their status, think of a drop-out system where someone's class status can go up and down quickly based on the goodness of their character, moral, honor, or their dutifulness in doing their noblesse oblige?
Good point: "after the moral primacy of ‘merit’ is accepted, it must also be conceded that other structures which impede the centering of ‘merit’ should be questioned: national borders, gender divides, insular communities, and prejudices of all kinds."
I liked the connection between merit and economic language of maximising and optimising. It steers the course elegantly between the bureaucratic idea of merit and whatever it is best to call the thought of the New Left's descendants, with their critical theory-informed quotas for everything. I'm just now realising that this is why marxists hate the family. Because it resists all these structures and inherently asserts inequalities established by divine order.
It occurs to me that a meritocracy and an aristocracy are both essentially about "merit." It's just different values sets. When you look at something like the Great Chain of Being, the idea was that the king was at the top and the peasants down below because they were SUPPOSED to be in those places. Merit≠works/economic activity in an aristocracy. But the people in that system still believe that people merit their stations (or, they revolt when their faith wavers). One system values economic output, the other values eg God etc (ie God put people where they are supposed to be). Anyway, very thought provoking.
Yes, in a sense my point with this article was to try and jolt people out of the assumption that meritocracy has a monopoly on true merit. Only once this is achieved do new possibilities open up
Seems to have worked!
It’s doesn’t matter whether meritocracy is via the “left-wing” route of credentialism, or the “right-wing” route of IQ tests, both are myopic ways of measuring a person. Your First-Class Honours or your 140 IQ score doesn’t tell me how creative you are, how innovative you are, are you trustworthy, do you have common sense, are you a moral person etc.
This doesn’t mean no standards should exist, especially for technical fields. I’m not going to let my mate Josh be responsible for designing the electrical systems of the factory, or fly the plane because I think he’s a decent chap. However, even in technical fields, there are limits to the theoretical.
I think the answer to this is would be a return to Guilds as system to measure and regulate talent.
That's rather close to a real world observation I've made- at least from a utilitarian perspective. I've noticed that the university system trains towards analytics, at the expense of the operational mindset required to actually build products that work, or keep infrastructure running.
Don't get me wrong. Analytics are necessary, but in the old days roughly 50% of the management were elevated from the shop floor. In particular, I've noticed that analytics experience a form of operational paralysis when they don't have information which proves they made the right decision. More often than not, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Trust is the other factor. A lot of analytics are terrible at engendering trust in subordinates. One of the lessons every young person needs to learn is that people generally don't abdicate responsibility to their superior (for every minute decision) because they necessarily want to shirk their job- it's more that they are desperate to know that their boss will have their back, and won't take responsibility unless they know their boss isn't going to instantly throw them under the bus as soon as their boss complains to them about a problem.
An attitude of 'come to me with solutions, not problems' is essential, as is the emphatic statement that if anyone has a problem with the way you do your job- send them to me...
I think it depends on the job in question. For something like leadership of a country or journalism you are absolutely correct that is no metric for merit, and that the PMC is indeed a new classe whose rule is not as substantially grounded as it pretends it is, and this leads to ungrounded arrogance on their part, which we saw during Covid for example.
OTH there are jobs like airline pilot that do have pretty discernable and quantifiable attributes and filling them should be merit based. I do not want an inherited aristocracy or a race based selection process used to determine who is flying my plane even if that is a non woke race based selection process that favors white people and Asians say.
True about airline jobs. However - 'meritocracy' is a totalizing system of arranging society, meaning that it's a fundamentally political arrangement, difficult to confine to particular jobs. I think you can describe solid pilot selection and training processes without embracing a wider 'meritocracy'
It looks like you are looking for a bianary either/or that applies across types of jobs. I argue that impossible. I am not arguing against you for generalist jobs like leadership and journalism, there we do need to pop the PMC credentialing via pseduo-merit bubble as it is leading to bad outcomes. But there are all kinds of technical jobs like say engineering jobs where people are doing say the actual hands on CAD work where you do want the best qualified person for the job, and it is possible to specify those parameters fairly precisely. Their managers however should be drawn from a different pool than the business schools that provide pseudo-certifications IMO.
Now we could throw that all out if we went back to society without super highways, jet travel, the internet, etc. Jacques Ellul makes strong arguments I am open to, that the rise of technology also brings with it what he calls *technique* which is in essence the merit based technocratic bureaucracy we see today. But how many of us are ready to give up an easy technology driven life in exchange for more organic leadership that draws from skills of the whole person? What we cannot do is have our cake and eat it too, technology driven society will have meritocratic workers by it's very nature. If anything we are headed for more technocracy with "project Stargate," I think this is concerning for some of the reasons you outlined in your essay, but I am not sure there is any way to stop it, I think we are all too deep in as technology addicts.
'the merit based technocratic bureaucracy we see today'
The problem here is that 'merit' can easily be fudged. Human social organisation is unavoidably nepotistic, so that ingroup preference will always find a way to justify itself. People will be recruited or rejected by a given organisation on the basis of 'fit' or the lack of it. This is openly admitted, without shame: you may have had the experience, as I have, of being rejected for a job on the basis, 'You just didn't seem like a good fit for our culture' (I execrate the use of this word as a synonym for conformity). This was the only explanation given; 'merit' or the like was never mentioned. It's hard to imagine that this underlying principle of personnel selection and retention doesn't operate in bueaucracies generally. I don't believe Cristine Lagarde, Ursula von der Layen, Jacinda Ardern, Justin Trudeau, Daniel Andrews (name your own example; there are innumerable others) got where they are on the basis of merit.
See also Ivy League admissions, which favour in huge disproportion applications by a certain group.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/
https://www.unz.com/runz/affirmative-action-and-the-jewish-elephant-in-the-room/
(I post links pace Johann; will delete if asked no problem)
But you make some very good points otherwise.
Again for not specialist positions I agree.
OTH I don’t want someone piloting an oil tanker unless they can pass some sort of test they can pilot a thousand foot boat safely. The devil is in the details which is why much broad abstract philosophizing misses the mark IMO.
For sure recognition of human technical competence--as demonstrated by proper training--is the only way to run technically complex systems. 'Woke' is (was?) partly informed by the mistaken belief that machines and procedures primarily, with human inputs secondary, can guarantee efficiency and safety.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that is destroying the West.
Thanks Terry
I don't buy it, especially not your definition of merit. One learns, one earns the merit and position. I see such as for more sensible than born to rule, or bank, or turn a crank.
No harm in doing work that you enjoy and are good at.
I think you'll sense what I'm getting at as the series goes on: what you've correctly described as desirable long precedes the advent of meritocracy in the West. Meritocracy, however, has certain characteristics (credentialism, study culture, far longer work hours than our ancestors, etc.)
I’ve moved further away from the term meritocracy over the years. I like to use meritocratic feudalism for a couple of reasons (some which you alluded to in the essay). In short:
1. Classes are inherent to social organisation. Modern attempts at removing natural classes have either formed unnatural or inverted classes, or invisible classes - all of which are stupid because it makes for a more opaque society and confused populace.
2. I like to think of “earning” being something more than just what you can earn commercially. For example, the warrior class must earn their position in a hierarchy as a result of Valor, courage and honor while the merchant must earn their position via shrewdness & patience. The key is that they are different and thus the meritocratic element is unique to THEIR class.
I’d argue that all great feudal societies were meritocratic to the degree there was mobility within classes.
Finally I’ll say that because class bloodlines have been the thoroughly mixed over the last couple centuries, new class archetypes have emerged that will excel meritocraticically in their own dimensions.
In Bushido I define the entrepreneur archetype as almost a blend of the warrior, the merchant and the artisan. A great entrepreneur has qualities of all three (I’m not talking about the conniving big pharma ceo or Wall Street banker here - I’m talking about the Musk / Bezos / Jobs archetype). They love what they do, they are craftsmen at heart, but the know how to run a commercial enterprise, and they have the heart & instinct of a warrior and love by many of the same honorable virtues.
I’ve got a set of unfinished essays exploring this a little further. Will publish at some stage. Maybe we even discuss them on a podcast.
We need a meritocratic aristocracy but also for the arts to be celebrated and positive virtues and values to be revived those of the Medieval period which were far saner than what we have to-day.
I'm surprised by how much I disagree with this.
On the lesser point, this definition of merit, of judging people by the results of tests and qualifications, is pretty synonymous with the civil service exams that were held throughout China for 1000+ years. Yet the essay assumes certain outcomes, such as the fertility collapse, destruction of tradition, and corruption of elites that one struggles to see in, say, Song China after ~500 years of rule by "meritocratic" Confucian scholar-officials who were explicitly granted their rank as a consequence of excellent standardized test performance. I'm not confident that the effects we see in the West are an inherent consequence of "meritocratic" systems and not just a uniquely Western/modern pathology.
On the other hand, and I'm surprised how angry I feel about this, is the idea that meritocracy is equivalent to "maximizing economic activity" is exactly backwards. "Meritocracy" retards economic progress. "Meritocracy" is 4 project managers with masters degrees looking busy and taking credit for the output of one software engineer. It's bloat, it's bureaucracy, it's people who fundamentally cannot "do the thing" getting in the way of people "doing the thing."
I don't want to say there's no consequences to the techie way, there are. Some things deserve to exist. The best way to bring those things into existence is an obsessive-compulsive focus on bringing the thing into existence. This is extremely productive and extremely unhealthy. No one's confused about the health and social consequences of taking modafinil for a week to crank out a key project but that guy will also do more in that week than most people get done in a quarter. That's the tradeoff.
But then there's these...parasites on the side, people managing compliance and HR and reporting. Some of them are probably necessary but they're not economically productive, they're not useful, at best they're a cost center and at worst a cancer.
And it's almost more a vibe thing. I don't like salespeople but a good salesperson is more important than a good techie and they've got the same vibe; no one cares about qualifications, obsessive, and obsessed with results over process.
Merit or excellence might still be important in your aristocracy. I will read on to investigate where it should rank in your value structure. The prodigal son should be worthy and capable before inheriting an empire. How can he be made ready if not through some trial of merit/manhood? Perhaps the answer will manifest itself with your series. Otherwise, great post.
Thank you Mathieu. You might enjoy my essay Raising Children Worthy of Empires, which addresses this exact topic:
https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/raising-children-worthy-of-empires
I think the strategy of building a governing system is best exemplified in the failed efforts of the framers of the US Constitution: design a self-neutralizing system. It doth not matter what system you put in place, the psychopaths will get in and wreck it. They will pervert it to cover their real aims and the ordinary citizen will yet again be victimized.
What we need is a system that identifies the psychopath class (real and potential) and either culls that herd or neutralizes their ambitions.
Sadly I don't think there's a permanent solution; just waves of civilizational growth and decay for us to ride
Keeping the psychos limited is a good start…
It does help
We could at least not valorize or reward them (e.g. with the title CEO).
It is life in a fallen world. It is easy to point out that it is fallen. But no fix will really work. That was the genius of the US constitution and the balance of powers. They both balance each other and (should) lead to a striving for excellence in their area.
Their “failed effort?” Big talk - ya got a better plan?
David...study History. Then get back to me. If their efforts were successful for more than 80 years, we would NOT have had the Civil War, nor would we have the creatures from Jekyll Island revamping our money systems to create a de facto centralized state with a banking system that is choking all of us, bleeding us to death to support that centralized monstrosity.
Try again, Mr. BigTalk.
As far as plans, the point is moot: there will be no rebooting the system with a new OS without massive destruction and violence and I see NO ONE with the power to bring such violence.
Get a clue.
Let us not overlook the perfectibility of the human soul: if the majority of human lives are determined by ones roots , there are crucibles where the soul turns around itself and gets rid of its dross: the monastery, the barracks, sometimes the trial of prison.
Limiting the question of merit to economic concerns today is a sign of our current moral rotting. An eloquent example to illustrate this point: The entire Napoleonic epic is a silent witness in favor of merit. But what merit are we, that of strong souls and powerful wills, not that of heavy purses.
In a word there should be a place for the merit of sacrifice
Many paragraphs here reminded me a lot of Erich Fromm. I'd be curious to know if you've read any of his works.
In particular, I think in this context you might find his concepts of the "societal character" or "marketing mentality" particularly interesting. Industralisation brought with it the need for standardisation, and so a society organised around merit as productivity suppresses many humane traits and behaviours (family formation, you name a few) in favour of a worker that seamlessly integrates with the machine.
Highly recommend "the sane society" or "to have or to be", if you're interested. You will not only find a socialist critique of meritocracy, capitalism and modern decay of religion and culture, but also a socialist critique of Marxism.
I have not! Sounds very interesting though, similar to Ivan Illich's thought
How possible is it to come up with a meritocratic aristocracy, where the aristocratic class will be very mobile in losing or attain their status, think of a drop-out system where someone's class status can go up and down quickly based on the goodness of their character, moral, honor, or their dutifulness in doing their noblesse oblige?
Quite possible, I think - let me see if I can develop some thoughts over the course of the series
Spicy title!
Gotta get those clicks
I loved it, very thoughtful and pertinent. A title is a tease or a promise, and you delivered on the promise and exceeded my expectations. Thank you
Good point: "after the moral primacy of ‘merit’ is accepted, it must also be conceded that other structures which impede the centering of ‘merit’ should be questioned: national borders, gender divides, insular communities, and prejudices of all kinds."
Danke
I liked the connection between merit and economic language of maximising and optimising. It steers the course elegantly between the bureaucratic idea of merit and whatever it is best to call the thought of the New Left's descendants, with their critical theory-informed quotas for everything. I'm just now realising that this is why marxists hate the family. Because it resists all these structures and inherently asserts inequalities established by divine order.
You're spot on - the natural structure of the family is a repudiation of every unnatural worldview