The Forest Is Not Separate From the World: AI, Leadership, and the Lesson of Treebeard

Funny how certain stories hit differently depending on the moment in history. 

Recently, while revisiting J.R.R. Tolkien’s "The Lord of the Rings," particularly "The Two Towers," I found myself thinking less about the battles and heroes, and more about Treebeard and the Ents.

For much of the story, Treebeard and the Ents see the growing conflicts across Middle-earth as distant problems. The wars of men, wizards, and kingdoms are unfortunate, certainly, but not truly their concern. Their focus is the forest. Preservation. Stability. Their own corner of the world.

Then Merry and Pippin guide Treebeard toward Isengard.

And suddenly, the illusion of separation disappears.

The trees have been cut down. The land has been industrialized. Smoke pours into the sky. The destruction is no longer abstract or theoretical. It is personal. The conflict had already reached the forest long before Treebeard was willing to acknowledge it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9BLUQ4nfQY

Honestly, I think about that scene often when I think about artificial intelligence.

Right now, many people still view AI as something happening “out there” in Silicon Valley, boardrooms, research labs, or tech companies. Something for software engineers, executives, policymakers, or futurists to figure out. Something that affects other industries, other jobs, or other people.

But AI is not a distant issue anymore.

It is already reshaping education, healthcare, finance, media, government, labor markets, communication, and even human relationships. It is influencing how information is distributed, how decisions are made, how students learn, how workers are evaluated, and increasingly, how power itself is concentrated.

Whether we want to engage with these questions or not, they are already shaping the world around us.

And that is precisely why more people need to be part of the conversation now, before decisions become irreversible and systems become entrenched.

To be clear, I am not anti-AI.

Far from it.

I believe AI has the potential to help solve extraordinary human problems. It can expand access to knowledge, accelerate scientific discovery, improve healthcare outcomes, support accessibility, reduce repetitive administrative work, and help organizations operate more effectively. In many cases, AI can augment human capability in genuinely meaningful ways.

Used responsibly, AI can absolutely be a force for good.

But history also teaches us that technological progress without thoughtful human stewardship can create enormous instability. The printing press transformed civilization, but it also fueled upheaval. Industrialization created prosperity, but often at tremendous human cost before labor protections and societal norms evolved alongside it.

Technology itself is not inherently moral. Its impact depends on the systems, incentives, and people guiding its adoption.

That is why I become concerned when conversations around AI focus exclusively on efficiency, disruption, or shareholder value while treating human consequences as secondary considerations.

There is a growing tendency in some corners of the tech world to speak about human labor as though it is merely friction in a system waiting to be optimized away. Entire professions are discussed as cost centers rather than communities of people whose work provides meaning, stability, dignity, and identity.

And while I understand the argument that “new jobs will emerge,” I also think many leaders underestimate how destabilizing rapid transition can become if societies are not prepared for it economically, culturally, or psychologically.

Human beings are not simply economic inputs.

Work is tied deeply to purpose, self-worth, community, and social structure. When people begin to feel discarded, unheard, or economically irrelevant, history shows us that instability follows. Distrust grows. Polarization deepens. Institutions weaken.

We are already seeing signs of this tension emerging.

At the same time, there is another issue we should discuss more openly: concentration of power.

AI development increasingly requires immense computational infrastructure, capital investment, proprietary data, and energy resources. That reality naturally consolidates influence into the hands of a relatively small number of corporations and institutions. Whether intentional or not, that concentration raises important questions about accountability, transparency, equity, and democratic participation.

We can already see this in the physical footprint of AI: the rapid expansion of data centers, the strain on electrical grids, the demand for water, and the concerns from communities worried about costs, land use, and environmental impact. These are not abstract technical issues. They are local, human, and civic issues.

• Who shapes these systems?

• Who benefits most from them?

• Who bears the risks?

• Who gets left behind?

Those are not merely technical questions. They are human questions. Societal questions. Leadership questions.

And that is why I keep returning to Treebeard.

His mistake was not ignorance. It was disengagement. It was assuming the larger forces reshaping the world would somehow stop at the edge of his forest.

I think many organizations, leaders, and even everyday citizens risk making the same mistake with AI today.

This conversation cannot belong solely to technologists. It cannot belong solely to governments or corporations. Teachers, workers, students, artists, healthcare professionals, business leaders, parents, and communities all deserve a voice in shaping what comes next.

Because AI is not just a technology story.

It is a human story.

The good news is that I remain fundamentally optimistic about people.

One of the things AI cannot replicate is human wisdom rooted in lived experience, empathy, ethics, culture, and shared responsibility. Human beings still determine the values embedded into institutions and systems. We still choose what we prioritize. We still decide whether technology serves humanity, or humanity bends entirely around technology.

That choice remains ours, at least for now.

But meaningful choices require engagement.

So perhaps the real leadership challenge of this moment is not whether we can build increasingly powerful AI systems. Clearly, we can.

The deeper question is whether we are willing to engage thoughtfully, collectively, and courageously enough to ensure those systems ultimately strengthen human dignity rather than diminish it.

Because unlike Treebeard, we do not get to say we were never warned that the world outside the forest would eventually reach us.         

Shawn Carey, PMP, is Director, Project Management Office at Measurement Incorporated, where he leads project and portfolio management efforts supporting large-scale educational assessment programs. His work focuses on operational leadership, organizational strategy, and the intersection of human-centered systems and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.

In addition to his professional work, Shawn serves as a global advisor for Global Citizens Circle, where he contributes perspectives on the societal, ethical, and leadership implications of AI and technological change. He is particularly interested in how organizations can adopt innovation responsibly while preserving human dignity, trust, and meaningful engagement in an increasingly automated world.

"AI is not just a technology story. It is a human story."  - Shawn Carey