“The road must be trod, but it will be very hard. And neither strength nor wisdom will carry us far upon it. This quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.“
This essay was originally given as a sermon on January 4th 2026, at Bell Street Chapel, Providence, RI.
I was encouraged to speak today about a connection I have with a writer whom I greatly admire and with whom I share a great distaste. That distaste is of the Modern World. As you hopefully will have noticed I, like J.R.R. Tolkien, do not dislike the World. In fact we both have loved it quite deeply, including the people within it. What I oppose is rather the imposition of the Modern World, in particular that of the man-made, and more particularly the undemocratic imposition of technology on our lives with the mental, physical, and environmental degradation it afflicts.
To those of you who are not familiar with Tolkien’s world of the Lord of the Rings I thought I would very tersely sum it up so that you were not completely lost during my sermon today.
The Lord of the Rings is an epic trilogy written by the British philologist J.R.R. Tolkien. The story is set in an imaginary, feudal world known as Middle Earth. Middle Earth is something of an over-lay template of our own medieval and ancient past, but not one concerned with matching archeology or history per-say. “Our earth,” Tolkien insisted, “in a different imaginative context.”
The story consists of an adventure to destroy the Ring of Power, which is an inherently evil object originally created by a powerful and ruthless master known as Sauron, the Enemy, or the Dark Lord. Over the centuries the Ring of Power has gone missing and during this time the Dark Lord has begun organizing his power in an effort to recover it. The Ring most unexpectedly ends up in the possession of a Hobbit, a race of miniature persons, named Bilbo (the main character of an earlier book, the Hobbit, written for his children). Bilbo eventually turns the Ring over to his nephew Frodo. As the circumstances become clear as to the true identity of the Ring, Frodo becomes embroiled in a geo-political effort to destroy it. If the Ring of Power were reclaimed by it’s master, the Dark Lord, it would lead inevitably to his victory over the world and to the enslavement of all inhabitants of Middle Earth. Out of this story line a vast and amazing and beautiful and terrifying world is created over the course of the three famous books.
Regarding the nut of my talk today, I would like to start with a reading from a letter that Tolkien wrote to his son, Christopher. It’s entitled “the Tragedy and Despair of all Machinery Laid Bare’. In it he refers to a concept that he calls the Machine. The Machine, to put it simply, refers to technology, but more specifically to the insidious nature of technology to corrupt, much like the Ring of Power from his novels.
“Unlike Art, which is content to create a new secondary world in the mind (by “secondary world” Tolkien meant the nearly infinite world of the imagination), [the Machine] attempts to actualize desire, and so to create power in this world. And that cannot really be done with any real satisfaction. Labor saving machinery only creates endless and worse labor… this fundamental disability of a creature [not only] makes our devices fail of their desire but turn to new and horrible evil… and so we come inevitably from Daedalus and Icarus to the giant bomber.”
This, with your permission, is what I’d like to discuss.
J.R.R.Tolkien insisted adamantly that his great work, the Lord of the Rings was not an allegory.
“I dislike allegory, wherever I smell it,” he said in an interview with the BBC.
Tolkien claimed that instead of offering allegory from the point of view of a writer, he wanted to provide applicability for the benefit of the reader. This subtle difference highlights beautifully the shortcomings of religious dogma which allegory tends to advance, versus the richness provided to societies and cultures through their collective stories, their myths and legends. It was a “new myth for England” that Tolkien had in mind when writing the Lord of the Rings. He intended to write what would fill the gaps left by the upheaval of the English literary world after 1066 and the industrial revolution, two events that thoroughly stripped England of most of its native folktale traditions, leaving it a country nearly barren of distinct myth.
Today we are used to reexaminations of western European fairytales through the lens of mass media, in particular Disney movies. From an American point of view, it is easy to misconstrue that what are primarily French and German folktales came from England, especially since in classic Disney productions the characters have either American or English accents. More recently in the zeitgeist is the hugely Tolkien-inspired epic A Game of Thrones, originally written by George R.R. Martin. When put to screen, virtually all the characters arrive to us with some whiff of a British accent. It’s a common trop that anything from a medieval genre should come packaged this way. It’s not an unreasonable approach. After all, we wouldn’t be convinced by a John Snow who spoke like he was from a Baltimore suburb. ‘I dunno how we’re gonna vanquish dhes villainous fohs, hon… We’re screuud’
The effect however is that English cultural history comes across the pond to us seemingly rich and deep, when in fact it is mostly an amalgamation of non-English, European folk traditions. What was English myth before 1066 CE has been almost completely lost to history, replaced by primarily French literary traditions. Whatever myths did survive in the oral tradition were more recently wiped out during the industrial revolution, which arrived early in England. The Grimm brothers were able to collect their timeworn stories from a largely pre-industrial mainland Europe, but collectors came too late to do the same surveys in England. There they found that a generation had been lost to industrialization, and with it the old country stories.
The Ring of Power is the great metaphor for evil incarnate. Although much ink can and has been spilled on the nature of evil, like beauty evil has been a challengingly subjective thing to tie down. For J.R.R Tolkien the nature of evil was enmeshed in the nature of freedom and the concept of coercion (similar to Milton’s a Paradise Lost). Tolkien saw coercion as an inherently evil process, one limiting the freedom and free will of the coerced. The ultimate goal of the one ring was to completely consolidate power, to rule all, and to bind all in darkness. The ring was the tool of the Dark Lord, who was evil personified on earth. In service to its creator the ring enslaved any other bearer, clouding their judgment, overtaking their morality, and enslaving them, coercing them, to it’s own end: the acquisition of total power. The Dark Lord has made several political alliances in the Lord of the Rings, with tribes of corrupted men and, most disturbingly, with the great philosopher/wizard Saruman, the lord of Isengard (something of a metaphor for the Academy, or higher learning in general). However, it is clear to the reader that any promises made by the Dark Lord to these supplicants will not be kept because, as Gandalf points out: “there is only one lord of the rings… and he does not share power.”
As salient (and accurate) as the ring as evil incarnate metaphor is, Tolkien himself seems to have had something more specific in mind. His son, Christopher Tolkien believes the ring represents most of all his father’s concept of the Machine. The Machine is the thing that binds us, controls us, and relieves us of our freedom of will, our means of operation. The Machine is the element in society so coercive and corrosive that, often without our knowledge, changes us into something we don’t respect or admire, withers our skills and our bodies, and isolates us from each other.
Christopher Tolkien summarized his father’s point of view:
“It’s very well known [that] he disliked the modern world, this is absolutely true. The word “modern” is the word that has to be emphasized. [J.R.R. Tolkien] loved the world, and he was in no conceivable sense a misanthrope. The Modern World meant for him, essentially, the Machine… a word he tried to enlarge. He more than once expressly said that it was one of the underlying themes of the Lord of the Rings, was the Machine.
We should think of this as rather more than what the [word] “machine” naturally means to us: trains, cars, airplanes. He used it quite compendiously to mean… almost an alternative solution to the development of the innate powers and talents of human beings… the wrong solution. The attempt to actualize our desires, like our desire to fly. It meant coercion. Domination: to him the great enemy. Coercion of other minds, other wills. This is tyranny. But he also saw the characteristic activity of the modern world, [the Machine], as the coercion, the tyrannous re-formation of the earth.”
The author and Harvard historian Jill Lepore points out the coercive veneer of modern history, something obvious to people like me who often feel like they are observing technological progress from the outside. She notes that the way modern people reckon history is not so often by great historical events or progress, but by technological innovation, such as the first personal computer, the first cellphone, the first iPhone, the imposition of streaming services, the arrival of AI, etc. Strikingly, theses are all events that are imposed on us, not anything that we took part in collectively or choose for ourselves. Of course it is easy to be swept up in the future-forward elated feeling of new tech, arriving in your own life in new-fangled chrome, with super-computing power in your pocket. But only brief observation exposes the truth that you have very little choice in these matters, and if you can put off adoption of new tech in the present you inevitably will be compelled to adopt it later. For anyone who believes that you can just “opt out” of technological progress will find themselves handicapped, immobilized, disengaged, muted… barred from attending concerts, reading menus, speaking in the public square, engaging with your government, and so on.
Easily deluded by the sheen of new tech and the glamor of the unbridled genius that creates it, we sicken ourselves. This trend is true in every modern industry from agriculture (the chemists who brought us GMOs and pesticides) to digital technology (the engineers who bring us ChatGPT).
At this point two and half generations of Westerners have now fed their children to the fire of digital technological advancement, an advancement that has hindered our development as a culture and as members of Nature’s biological community, all for the seemingly sole benefit of enriching the already grotesquely rich. We live in a world where the wealthiest people who have ever lived vie for power in ways so unabashedly immoral that we, the little people, sometimes have a hard time believing our own eyes and ears. Elon Musk, once lauded by the left as a technological global savior, has just been awarded by the shareholders of Tesla the title of the world’s first trillionaire. This is the same person who earlier this year almost single handedly destroyed the most important aid program in the world, USAID, an act that is expected to lead to the deaths of 14 million people by 2030. As one reporter observed during Musk’s reign as junior emperor in early 2025, the world’s richest men are gleefully killing the world’s poorest people.
When Peter Thiel, AI and cryptocurrency venture capitalist extraordinary, is pressed about his concerns for the future he mentions his pessimism regarding AI’s promised impacts on GDP and efficiency. He worries of AI falling short in it’s promises of rapid development, for instance regarding the fast-tracking of interplanetary travel, and so on. He seems to have no concern about the exponential decay his investments have produced in our quality of life, in particular our children’s quality of life, never mind the quality of our natural environment. Data centers, essentially water and fossil fuel consuming factories to facilitate AI-computing, are being constructed at rapid speeds all over the country. For AI all is seemingly ripe for sacrificial slaughter: the air, the water, the climate, our jobs, and our children.
This is the Ring, the Machine that Tolkien is warning us about in the Lord of the Rings. This is what he meant when he wrote of the “coercion, the tyrannous reformation of the earth” that the Machine would bring.
Digital damage exists most severally among young people, with suicide rates soaring as self-esteem, quality relationships, and opportunities for expressions of Self (i.e. quality job opportunities, creative output, simple socializing) plummet. The pushback to the iPhone and social media is being organized into a fairly pathetic cogency as the population wipes the tar from its eyes, finally admitting that the tech utopia promised us in the late twentieth century has not, and will not, be arriving. Schools are finally banning them. Parents are finally regulating them. Many of us wish we could dispense with these things but find it painfully difficult to adapt to a device-free world. Too obvious to avoid admitting, while we have been sleep walking through our two decades of tech addiction, the cruelest, most cynical companies that have ever existed on earth have browbeaten our children into despair and hopelessness, while effectively dividing and conquering the vast majority of adults.
The resistance, in comparison, is flaccid. Schools may be banning phones, yet tablets are still fixtures in the classrooms, as early as kindergarten. Human beings do not need to learn tablet operation in grade school to be globally competitive in the future. Your child can learn how to master a tablet in a single afternoon. What they cannot master so quickly is handwriting, conversational aptitude, patience, kindness, non-verbal cue assessments, boredom, critical thinking, etc. iPhones and tablets should be regulated as severely as drugs, as severely as cigarettes and alcohol, and social services to protect children from them should be paramount. I am not naive about substance abuse. Alcoholism and hard drugs have plagued my family and killed my friends, but I see device culture as particularly insidious. Like it or not, drugs and alcohol have evolved with human societies as ways of bringing people together, expanding our conversations and ideas, even expanding our minds. With only the thinnest venire of community building, devices and AI are most effective at tearing us apart, with limiting our viewpoints. They are addicting us to them, but more insidiously, they are addicting us to ourselves. Many people and families suffer from substances, and I never would downplay the brutality of drug and alcohol addiction on individuals and their families, but everyone suffers from device culture, even if you don’t use them… it’s like second hand tech pollution.
I spoke with a community college writing professor about the burnout she is experiencing around AI in education. In response to the difficulty of detecting AI plagiarism some weary teachers are turning to handwriting assignments. This professor told me that she has students who can’t write. I don’t mean can’t write well or legibly, I mean they physically cannot write. It hurts their wrists to hold a pencil. She tells me that at a local university they are offering a class called “Writing With AI” and professors, such as my friend, are being encouraged to take these classes. The fatalism around AI is extensive, and quite predictable as it follows the typical pattern of technological advancement in the modern world. It seems like we have been expecting it for so long that we have sort of willed it’s importance into existence. Why exactly must we learn to write with AI? I’m not suggesting we don’t need AI in the public sector, perhaps for military safeguards or for healthcare, but if it’s a question of reorganizing private society then shouldn’t we have a say about it? Who would vote for the AI economy? It would be like voting for a data center to move in next-door, tap out your well, pollute your air, cut down your forests, and then make your job obsolete.
We forget that we used to have a say in how we thought society should behave around labor, child-rearing, etc. The proper way to approach the issue of a bereaved or working person using chatbot therapy or AI scheduling is not to congratulate ourselves on a clever way to navigate this harried world, but to raise the alarm that we are being sold a bag of goods to distract us from our misery and our responsibility to create a better world. It is important to remember that Silicon Valley has not invented something that helps us enjoy or expand our personal time, like a refrigerator or a toaster oven. They haven’t re-invented home plumber, ushered in a new era of mass composting, or facilitated a four-day workweek. They have simply found an opportunity to exploit us, in particular our kids, when we are most vulnerable and powerless. In the end their goal is to facilitate the gathering of wealth away from us while we continue to become more harried, more misinformed, more isolated, more unemployable and more suicidal. We have been given the poison and then sold the antidote, which it turns out is snake oil.
The most savvy among us are taken in by AI. A brief essay by the psychoanalyst Harvey Lieberman, now in his eighties, documents how he became entangled with a Chat GPT therapist. After casually downplaying such pop-psychology fads as meditation and Prozac he spoke very provocatively about this latest craze: clinical AI. Dr. Lieberman refers in his essay to his AI assistant as a “thinking partner”, or a therapist “in miniature”. His essay explores how the AI system helped him “understand those closest to me in a new light”, in particular his father. It helped him develop a new and comforting feeling about his father that apparently decades of self-exploration and/or clinical therapy never revealed. This is obviously compelling, and without some compelling details AI would have no purchase on our attention. Lieberman wrote about the “emotional charge” he felt using his thinking partner, an emotional response that came to him “not because the machine was real, but because the feeling was.”
This brief essay highlights the allure and the destructive quality of AI. Here is a professional clinician, someone who has trained “hundreds” of other therapist, gaining insight and more, emotion, from working with a ChatGPT partner. He handles it well, disciplined, and is able to identify when the ChatGPT slips up, makes “fabricated errors or misinformed conclusions”. The doctor still had the upper hand with the facts and could correct the AI when it strayed.
Even with decades of psychological training Dr. Lieberman was emotionally, let’s not say manipulated, but stimulated by his AI chatbot. So, how should we expect people without this fine, cognitive discipline to react? As chatbots become study-buddies, video-game sidekicks, therapists for the uninsured, and romantic partners, what should we expect? With the iPhone and social media we pretended that we did not know how much damage they were doing to us. The research was not in, the academics hadn’t come to their conclusions, so we watched our kids and families became absorbed into their webs. We cannot pretend now. We have no excuse but to accept that these things are bad for us, in particularly for young people. Although Peter Thiel may be skeptical of the potential impacts of AI (“somewhere between a nothing-burger, and a big deal“), make no mistake: If the iPhone and social media are the shock troops for a technologically disoriented society, AI is the atom bomb.
J.R.R. Tolkien left us a message, albeit an occult one wrapped in metaphor, but I see it clearly now. The Modern World is only as good as the modern people who build it. I will continue to work towards a world I would be proud for my son to inherit. We must do better than to try. We must succeed. I hope you will join me. I know that you will.
May It Be So.



