elon musk: how much deleting is too much?

what can we surmise about where musk is headed from where he has been?

Fascinated in a "jaw-dropping, have we witnessed the end of our democracy??" way by Elon Musk's takeover of the United States government, I dove into Walter Isaacson’s 600-page biography of Musk with an eye toward curiosity. What can we surmise about where Musk is headed from where he has been?

Isaacson spent two years shadowing Musk and interviewing many people around him. The book is written chronologically, with short chapters dedicated to moments or periods in his life and at his many companies.

Common themes emerge that reinforce Musk's style, character, intelligence, and intensity. He's intellectually brilliant but emotionally immature. He's manic, hardcore (Musk’s word), incredibly demanding of his employees, and a workaholic. He operates in a near-constant state of a "high risk, high reward” mentality, willing to accept the collateral damage that's part and parcel of high-risk decision-making. He expects to control from the top and doesn't hesitate to micromanage when it suits his ultimate objectives.

His entire existence is laser-focused on innovating to prevent the extinction of human civilization and consciousness, primarily by forging a path to multi-planetary human existence and protecting our consciousness from being subsumed by artificial intelligence. From his perspective, all of his companies are built to aid humans in preventing our demise.

You and I may not see that through-line. He'd probably argue we aren't intelligent or enlightened enough to understand it all. But it's how he connects all of his work.

delete, delete, delete

Musk has developed an "algorithm" for streamlining operations at each company he owns. Now, he's applying that algorithm to the federal government. Isaacson described it in the book, and I discussed it in more detail here regarding the federal government. It feels like a "slash and burn" strategy that operates at breakneck speed. It leaves trails of collateral damage in its wake that Musk considers an inevitable cost of achievement.

If Musk successfully executes his endeavors with the federal government, he will significantly reduce its regulation and risk management functions. Some may argue that this is necessary for a bloated government burdened with debt. Others will question the speed at which Musk is dismantling the government, knowing that the faster it's broken, the more it will bleed.

Indeed, there will be collateral damage: pain, suffering, despair, and death. Musk (and others) will accept this as a means to an end, though notably, the pain and suffering will be experienced mainly by others and little by those who inflict it. As Musk peels away the government's risk management tools, time will tell how much the friction of those regulations and oversight tools helped or hindered humanity.

is less more?

In some instances, progress in the United States has been significantly hampered by excessive regulation. Breaking through the red tape of bureaucracy might help forge a path forward in some cases.

Conservative business communities have long whined about the regulations that prevent them from openly exploiting humans and the planet (worker protections, environmental regulations, market oversight, etc...). At their core, these regulations are part of the liberal consensus, an approach to government present in the United States since the mid-twentieth century that most Americans like.¹

But regulation has become so burdensome that we're even seeing progressives advocate for less regulation in some cases, like when it hampers new construction of affordable housing or the development of clean energy infrastructure. German Lopez of The New York Times recently wrote of regulations related to permitting:

“The balancing act goes beyond clean energy. Environmental protections can stop water and air pollution, but they can also create new hurdles for road and rail projects. Labor rules can make workplaces safer and fairer, but they can also make it too expensive to open a factory for semiconductor chips. Zoning laws can help preserve the feel and look of a neighborhood, but they can also make it difficult to build housing.”

Governmental regulation has mainly accumulated (with little deletion or amendment) over time, leaving complex and burdensome rules that may be overbearing. We're seeing the pendulum quickly swing toward deregulation. With Musk at the helm, we're undoubtedly going to see overcorrection. Deleting at least 10% more than is appropriate (to add back later only when necessary) is step #2 of his algorithm. Musk says:

"Delete any part or process you can. You may have to add them back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn’t delete enough."

what about collateral damage?

It’s unclear how much pain such an approach will cause people and the planet. At SpaceX, the collateral damage includes blown-up rocket ships. At Twitter, it resulted in an 80% reduction in employees and a precipitous decline in market value. Those were companies on the innovation side of the scale.

The government is the risk management counterweight to the speed and risk of capitalist drive and innovative development. What happens when we apply the most aggressive principles of creative destruction to both sides of the scale?

Isaacson said about Musk:

"Do the audaciousness and hubris that drive him to attempt epic feats excuse his bad behavior, his callousness, his recklessness? The times he's an asshole? The answer is no, of course not. One can admire a person's good traits and decry the bad ones. But it's also important to understand how the strands are woven together, sometimes tightly. It can be hard to remove the dark ones without unraveling the whole cloth.

...

But would a restrained Musk accomplish as much as a Musk unbound? Is being unfiltered and untethered integral to who he is? Could you get the rockets to orbit or the transition to electric vehicles without accepting all aspects of him, hinged and unhinged? Sometimes great innovators are risk-seeking man-children who resist potty training. They can be reckless, cringeworthy, sometimes even toxic. Then can also be crazy. Crazy enough to think they can change the world."

In the private sector, the consequences of Musk's unhinged and toxic behavior were confined mainly to the companies he owned. The sometimes reckless path to epic feats of advancement had the government as its guardrail. It remains to be seen how widespread the death, despair, and destruction will be when the unfiltered and untethered methods are applied to the guardrails themselves.

we're forgetting the government's #1 job

Let’s chat

I’d love to hear what you think. Have you read the book? What do you expect to be the consequences of Musk’s blaze through our bureaucracy? How and how much should we restrain the crazy? If Musk succeeds in streamlining the government and setting it up for the next phase of humanity, what cost are we willing to accept on that path to progress?

1. In its best form, modern liberalism governs diverse societies grounded in fundamental principles of equality and the rule of law. It emphasizes individuals' rights to pursue their own happiness free from government encroachment. However, government oversight and regulations exist to protect individuals' rights in a pluralistic society committed to the common good, which is considered compatible with or superior to individual freedoms.