Output versus input

There is a case for suggesting that people seek to gain the maximum output for the lowest possible input. Planners thought that London cycle lanes would make people healthier, but more and more cyclists there use power assisted bikes or scooters. Many people don't work if they can gain higher benefit incomes by not working. People want output with minimum input; it looks like human nature.

Its biological and evolutionary roots stem from energy conservation. For most of human history, calories were scarce. Our ancestors who conserved energy by finding efficient ways to hunt, gather, or build shelters had better survival odds. That tendency still shapes us.

Minimizing effort reduces exposure to risks such as injury, failure, or wasted time. Evolution often favored ‘good enough’ strategies over costly perfection. In economics, it is assumed that people act to maximize utility (happiness, wealth, satisfaction) with the least cost in time, energy, or money.

In terms of opportunity cost, time and effort spent on one task cannot be spent elsewhere. Minimizing inputs frees resources for other pursuits such as family, leisure, or creative work. There is a work-leisure tradeoff. If someone can live acceptably without working (e.g., through benefits), they may rationally prefer leisure to labour.

Social and psychological dynamics favour status efficiency. In modern societies, efficiency itself is often valued. Technologies, apps, and shortcuts are praised. Owning an e-bike can signal practicality rather than laziness.

 Psychology emphasizes that people seek pleasure and avoid pain. Less effort for more gain aligns with this. Even mentally, humans are ‘cognitive misers,’ preferring heuristics or shortcuts rather than exhausting reasoning every time.

But there are counterbalances and nuances. Many people willingly expend more effort than necessary when they find meaning; this includes athletes training hard, artists working late, or volunteers serving with no material reward. Societies often praise effort, discipline, and ‘earning’ rewards. This tempers the pure drive for efficiency.

And there can be long-term optimization. Sometimes more input now leads to more output later, such as in education, exercise, and skill development. People don’t always choose the immediate easiest path.

 So in one sense, seeking maximum output for minimum input is grounded in biology and rational self-interest. But human nature is plural. Alongside efficiency-seeking, we also find drives for mastery, altruism, identity, and self-expression, things that can’t be reduced to efficiency alone.

 The notion of minimum input for maximum output is a deeply rooted human tendency, shaped by evolution, economics, and psychology. But it is not the whole of human nature; rather, it is one axis of behavior, often in tension with other motives like meaning, pride in effort, or moral duty. Those choosing to live off benefits rather than working may be acting rationally, but lacking in meaning, pride in effort, and moral duty.

Madsen Pirie