Tolkien was probably right in that he would have hated to live in 2026. We are literally building machines designed to replace people like him.
And yet, I can't help thinking that I would hate to live in Tolkien's time. When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box. To me, a computer was the same as a spaceship--something I would never own. Then in 1978, I saw an ad for a TRS-80 personal computer, and my world flipped.
Even now, in my 60s, I can't wait to sit down and start programming (with or without AI). I've had a long, fruitful, and extremely fun career with computers, and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.
Does that mean it's all relative? Whatever we're used to, that's what's good and any change is monstrous? Or is there really such a thing as progress and degeneration? Is it possible to say our time is better or worse than Tolkien's in some absolute sense?
I don't know. I think if you take a Rawlsian perspective, and imagine being a random person of the era, I think being born today is far preferable to being born in 1892. On every measure--childhood poverty, violent deaths, even air quality--2026 is better than 1892.
And that improvement is due almost entirely to technology--to the machine.
One of my favorite movies as a kid was Explorers (1985) where kids built a spaceship from a Tilt-A-Whirl and other parts. It was an inspiration. Like you, I enjoy programming, but I haven't built a spaceship yet. Hehe
That movie was really incredible, right up until the part where they ran out of money making it and it took a right hand turn into being absolutely terrible.
When I was young I only saw the first half. Decades later I got to finish it ... what a letdown after all this time.
> When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box.
In around 1976, when I was five, I followed a smaller design: mine fit entirely inside an egg carton, with the tops painted various colors representing buttons. I had a roll of punched paper tape as a souvenir from my aunt, who worked in accounting for textile company. I fed that tape into the egg carton as input.
I heartily agree with you except for the ongoing childhood-screentime pandemic where kids aren't going outside to play, but instead are staying inside, alone, and maybe playing with others virtually, but with more exposure to harm (e.g. gambling). This is clearly going to cause some serious long term generational fallout.
Agreed--we're already seeing some of that, and I fully support minimizing kids' exposure to that.
I probably should have been explicit that I don't think technology has no downsides--it most certainly does. It's just, IMHO, the benefits outweigh the risks. And, over time, we figure out how to ameliorate the downsides.
> and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.
You're falling into the trap of saying I could've only been happy if I did X. But humans aren't like that - even garbagemen find happiness in their work. The brain adapts to baseline no matter the field.
The second trap you're falling into is saying look how abundant things are compared to 1892. We have every statistic proven and locked down that abundance does not equal happiness.
Ages ago, I used to draw using pencils and having to ink drawings and then once 3 views were done, do all the work to make a 3D rendering --- while I appreciate Marshall MacLuhan's warnings concerning each technological advancement resulting in a matching amputation, the freedom and expressiveness which modern CAD affords is nothing short of miraculous --- it was pretty rare for there to be a draftsman whose artistic sensibilities allowed them to escape from the overnight drafting shift to making their own designs.
But happiness wasn't mentioned. There was "fun", "I can't imagine what I would have done without them", and "preferable". If happiness is not the goal, your point about being happy with garbage is irrelevant.
The ones I know find happiness in their relatively high pay for an 8hr/day, no GED-required job, with the job security that the first few days are blindingly difficult for anyone to adapt to, even highly fit college athletes (source: 40+ garbageman whose son couldn't hack two days of it).
I’m not a fan of cars or environmental damage but the idyll that he puts on a pedestal just didn’t exist for the vast majority of humans in Britain (let alone elsewhere in the world)
The Cotswolds documented at their tail end (ended by the motorcycle and car) by Laurie Lee in "Cider With Rosie" had about the same existence for centuries.
I would push back on that concept a bit. I think if you lived in the Cotswolds in say 1920 you would be agog with the pace of change. Bicycles, industry, exploration the world even literacy. Everything around you was changing and the idea that this place was unchanged is simply not true.
Somebody in 1820 might not be able to read but by 1920 literacy had hit 96-97% (numbers for the UK in general), books became far more common etc etc
Tolkien continues to be quite prescient then. The Automobile has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind, the environment, and society. It destroys the environment, it makes cities less pleasant to live in, it kills people, it causes extra friction to social interactions that damages social bonds.
It's fair to say that after all the descriptions of the shire vs isengard etc in the LoTR, his position on mechanization and cars isn't very surprising, but it's quite extraordinary for this to show up.
Wow what a treat, previously unreleased tolkien satire on one of my own hobby-horses. Put in an order with my local bookstore, so excited to read this!
Tolkien was probably right in that he would have hated to live in 2026. We are literally building machines designed to replace people like him.
And yet, I can't help thinking that I would hate to live in Tolkien's time. When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box. To me, a computer was the same as a spaceship--something I would never own. Then in 1978, I saw an ad for a TRS-80 personal computer, and my world flipped.
Even now, in my 60s, I can't wait to sit down and start programming (with or without AI). I've had a long, fruitful, and extremely fun career with computers, and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.
Does that mean it's all relative? Whatever we're used to, that's what's good and any change is monstrous? Or is there really such a thing as progress and degeneration? Is it possible to say our time is better or worse than Tolkien's in some absolute sense?
I don't know. I think if you take a Rawlsian perspective, and imagine being a random person of the era, I think being born today is far preferable to being born in 1892. On every measure--childhood poverty, violent deaths, even air quality--2026 is better than 1892.
And that improvement is due almost entirely to technology--to the machine.
One of my favorite movies as a kid was Explorers (1985) where kids built a spaceship from a Tilt-A-Whirl and other parts. It was an inspiration. Like you, I enjoy programming, but I haven't built a spaceship yet. Hehe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorers_(film)
That movie was really incredible, right up until the part where they ran out of money making it and it took a right hand turn into being absolutely terrible.
When I was young I only saw the first half. Decades later I got to finish it ... what a letdown after all this time.
> When I was around 10, in 1975, I built a giant computer out of a cardboard box.
In around 1976, when I was five, I followed a smaller design: mine fit entirely inside an egg carton, with the tops painted various colors representing buttons. I had a roll of punched paper tape as a souvenir from my aunt, who worked in accounting for textile company. I fed that tape into the egg carton as input.
And so here we are ...
I heartily agree with you except for the ongoing childhood-screentime pandemic where kids aren't going outside to play, but instead are staying inside, alone, and maybe playing with others virtually, but with more exposure to harm (e.g. gambling). This is clearly going to cause some serious long term generational fallout.
Agreed--we're already seeing some of that, and I fully support minimizing kids' exposure to that.
I probably should have been explicit that I don't think technology has no downsides--it most certainly does. It's just, IMHO, the benefits outweigh the risks. And, over time, we figure out how to ameliorate the downsides.
> and I can't imagine what I would have done without them.
You're falling into the trap of saying I could've only been happy if I did X. But humans aren't like that - even garbagemen find happiness in their work. The brain adapts to baseline no matter the field.
The second trap you're falling into is saying look how abundant things are compared to 1892. We have every statistic proven and locked down that abundance does not equal happiness.
Do you believe that all work is equivalent? That no matter what job I chose, I would be equally happy? That is hard for me to believe.
Do you believe that, on balance, the world is no better today than in 1892? If so, that's where we disagree.
Ages ago, I used to draw using pencils and having to ink drawings and then once 3 views were done, do all the work to make a 3D rendering --- while I appreciate Marshall MacLuhan's warnings concerning each technological advancement resulting in a matching amputation, the freedom and expressiveness which modern CAD affords is nothing short of miraculous --- it was pretty rare for there to be a draftsman whose artistic sensibilities allowed them to escape from the overnight drafting shift to making their own designs.
But happiness wasn't mentioned. There was "fun", "I can't imagine what I would have done without them", and "preferable". If happiness is not the goal, your point about being happy with garbage is irrelevant.
> even garbagemen find happiness in their work.
Citation definitely needed.
The ones I know find happiness in their relatively high pay for an 8hr/day, no GED-required job, with the job security that the first few days are blindingly difficult for anyone to adapt to, even highly fit college athletes (source: 40+ garbageman whose son couldn't hack two days of it).
Tolkien really was a serious reactionary.
I’m not a fan of cars or environmental damage but the idyll that he puts on a pedestal just didn’t exist for the vast majority of humans in Britain (let alone elsewhere in the world)
The Cotswolds documented at their tail end (ended by the motorcycle and car) by Laurie Lee in "Cider With Rosie" had about the same existence for centuries.
I would push back on that concept a bit. I think if you lived in the Cotswolds in say 1920 you would be agog with the pace of change. Bicycles, industry, exploration the world even literacy. Everything around you was changing and the idea that this place was unchanged is simply not true.
Somebody in 1820 might not be able to read but by 1920 literacy had hit 96-97% (numbers for the UK in general), books became far more common etc etc
Change is the only constant.
Tolkien and Lewis came by their luddism fairly, having both survived the horrors of trench warfare.
This concept of "machine worship" reminds me of E. M. Forster's The Machine Stops.
Is it possible for a tech-oriented ideal to escape "machine worship"?
As we strive to refine our "machines" ever further, and our "machines" become ever more capable, where does that lead us?
Tolkien continues to be quite prescient then. The Automobile has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind, the environment, and society. It destroys the environment, it makes cities less pleasant to live in, it kills people, it causes extra friction to social interactions that damages social bonds.
It's fair to say that after all the descriptions of the shire vs isengard etc in the LoTR, his position on mechanization and cars isn't very surprising, but it's quite extraordinary for this to show up.
Wow what a treat, previously unreleased tolkien satire on one of my own hobby-horses. Put in an order with my local bookstore, so excited to read this!