Relentless Efficiency
TL;DR
Is optimizing everything to the extreme really the thing we want?
Elon Musk is known for his ruthless methods when it comes to making a business profitable—or at least as efficient as it possibly can be. According to him, you should strip everything away until it’s clear you’ve gone too far, and then simply re-add the things that were actually critical. While this is certainly a good strategy for building cars, rockets, or software, when it comes to people, it can become demoralizing rather quickly. While Elon himself may not see it that way, given his character and mindset, it’s clear that not everyone agrees with him. His recent actions involving DOGE has sparked controversy and discussion about what our values and how they align within a broader spectrum.
If there’s one thing he has made painfully obvious, it’s that people want efficiency and lower costs or prices—but not at the expense of human labor. As Nilay Patel from The Verge would put it, “there’s a real tension there”. While many may not agree with Musk’s practices, they can’t deny that bureaucracy is inherently inefficient and certainly not cost-effective. Cutting out unnecessary regulations, systems, and, by extension, people may result in a more streamlined process in the long run. Apart from the demoralizing effect it can have on those still involved, as long as they remain in their positions and keep up a certain level of productivity, the benefits of downsizing may outweigh any potential penalties for overstaffing. At least, that seems to be Musk’s perspective.
After reading his biography a year ago, I made a personal decision: halfway through, I deleted my Twitter/X account. I refused to support someone who had been so ruthless toward so many employees when he took over Twitter. I even left a goodbye message, but since I discontinued my account, it’s unlikely anyone ever got the chance to read it. At that moment, I also joked with a few friends in a group chat that buying a Tesla or flying on one of Musk’s rockets was officially out of the question. In any case, it seems I made the right decision, even though it was a tough one—especially considering I joined Twitter at the same time as Musk himself, ironically enough. Since then, many people and businesses have left the platform. Recently, he was even mocked on Saturday Night Live, the same show he hosted a few years ago. It just goes to show how quickly things can change—especially when it comes to people with major influence who are under continuous scrutiny from both the general public and more formal institutions.
What probably frustrates people the most, is the way Musk has been granted power over government agencies—without ever being elected. He simply carries out his mission authorized by the president, Donald Trump. I believe Musk genuinely thinks he is helping the U.S. by increasing efficiency and ensuring that taxpayers eventually see the benefits—assuming Trump’s tariff policies don’t skew the numbers too much. And yet, even if citizens end up paying less, they seem unwilling to accept that it came at the cost of human jobs. Whether this response is noble, emotional, or simply human is unclear, but it’s certainly interesting to observe. Given that robots and AI will inevitably replace many jobs, we may soon face a similar dilemma: will we accept lower prices at the expense of human labor? Do we truly value cheap products or lower taxes more than genuine human involvement?
Meanwhile, China is investing heavily in robotics, securing its dominance in the future. With U.S. sanctions and new tariffs in place, these restrictions may actually accelerate China’s progress rather than slow it down. We’ve already seen this effect with DeepSeek, an AI chatbot that rivals ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost. Limiting supply can sometimes backfire, pushing a country like China to become more innovative and find new, more efficient solutions to counter these measures. In robotics, they may very well create a society almost entirely driven by automated labor. While that might sound beneficial for humans, the reality is that it could force people to work even harder to remain competitive. As a result, China could become even more productive, leveraging the battle between human and robotic labor to its advantage.
As I wrote in my article Modern Luddites, I suspect that people may deliberately sabotage automation to keep their jobs safe. This aligns with the broader issue of government and public interests clashing, but if we view a country as a large corporation, then the efficiency gained from robotics may not be redistributed to the people who need it. Instead of implementing Universal Basic Income (UBI), we could end up in a system where people are not given money to spend but rather goods to consume. On paper, it might seem beneficial—governments essentially handing out necessities—but it would come at the cost of diversity and quality. Some might argue that what people would miss most isn’t money itself but the ability to work, to be productive, and to choose what they purchase—even if it wasn’t much. Losing freedom of choice could be the real endgame of automation and relentless efficiency.
Musk seems to have miscalculated one crucial factor: people don’t want to optimize everything to the extreme. Instead, they prefer optimization in harmony with human collaboration, where both efficiency and human well-being are carefully balanced. If either side is unhappy, it’s likely that everyone loses in the long run. Whether automation dominates the future or not, there will always be a market of supply and demand, and simply increasing supply does not necessarily drive demand. It may seem counterintuitive, but sometimes restricting supply has a larger impact than we might realize. While a world of abundance may seem like the ultimate goal, the real challenge is maintaining the freedom to supply and demand—provided our basic human needs are fulfilled.
Ultimately, we shouldn’t pursue automation purely for efficiency’s sake, but rather to enhance quality of life. And perhaps, in that regard, Elon and I share at least one common belief: that extending and improving human life—and consciousness—matters more than anything else.