There rises the question here of what academia is *for.*
The question matters because academics have always been somewhat parasitic on society writ large, subsidized by others to investigate things that do not have normal monetary reward.

Recognizing that academics live off of the largess of others is the sensible starting point: it reminds us of what should be obvious but is otherwise obscure —the existence of academia rests on its promise to provide social goods the marketplace cannot.

The goal of academia then is not to provide job security or life purpose to academics, much less a “fair” distribution of these things. This is not why society subsidizes it.

Whether science was better when academics had to toady up to rich people/ draw on their inherited wealth or whether science is better in the age of grant writing and publish or perish should be judged on the social goods each system provided.

Meritocracy does not exist for its own sake. It is a means, not an end. The value of the means depends entirely on its success in attaining the ends it was designed for.