Rousseau's Arguments Against Progress Research Paper

Words: 1020
Pages: 5

Rousseau’s Argument Against Progress

Rousseau had very clear views on the role progress played in the decline of humanity. What is considered progress in the modern world is the opposite of what Rousseau would call progress. If he were alive, Rousseau would think that modern technology and priorities have made modern humans dependent on others, prone to illness, and hard-hearted. He would posit that progress has ruined man. If one were to compare the way modern humans live to ancestors from long ago, it would be obvious that lifestyles have drastically changed. Many humans now have time for leisure, and can worry about where to vacation rather than hunting and gathering the next meal. However, the ample free time many now enjoy has certainly softened mankind. Rather than hunting down the next meal, now one simply goes to the local market or restaurant to grab dinner. Many people would have no idea how to procure a meal if suddenly they were thrown into nature with no provisions. Self-sufficiency, something Rousseau highly valued, is no longer found in modern society. As society became more inter-dependent man lost his instincts. Man is slower, fatter, and less agile than he previously was. He
…show more content…
A simple walk through a grocery store shows multitudes of expensive items marketed towards people who cannot eat gluten, peanuts, dairy, or multiple other items on special diets. Many of the people who purchase those items certainly need them, but would they have needed them in the past? Would heart disease be such a large killer of Americans if progress had not enabled people to be less physically active? Would there be extreme obesity if one could eat only what he or she could hunt and gather? The answer is certainly no. Modern life bred modern illnesses that, for many reasons, would not have existed if society had not continually progressed, all in efforts to make life