  Humanity has been fascinated by the pursuit of fortune since time immemorial,
and many successful outcomes benefit from strokes of luck. But success is
subject to complexity, uncertainty, and change - and at times becoming
increasingly unequally distributed. This leads to tension and confusion over to
what extent people actually get what they deserve (i.e., fairness/meritocracy).
Moreover, in many fields, humans are over-confident and pervasively confuse
luck for skill (I win, it's skill; I lose, it's bad luck). In some fields,
there is too much risk taking; in others, not enough. Where success derives in
large part from luck - and especially where bailouts skew the incentives
(heads, I win; tails, you lose) - it follows that luck is rewarded too much.
This incentivizes a culture of gambling, while downplaying the importance of
productive effort. And, short term success is often rewarded, irrespective, and
potentially at the detriment, of the long-term system fitness. However, much
success is truly meritocratic, and the problem is to discern and reward based
on merit. We call this the fair reward problem. To address this, we propose
three different measures to assess merit: (i) raw outcome; (ii) risk adjusted
outcome, and (iii) prospective. We emphasize the need, in many cases, for the
deductive prospective approach, which considers the potential of a system to
adapt and mutate in novel futures. This is formalized within an evolutionary
system, comprised of five processes, inter alia handling the
exploration-exploitation trade-off. Several human endeavors - including
finance, politics, and science -are analyzed through these lenses, and concrete
solutions are proposed to support a prosperous and meritocratic society.
