Rousseau is something of an intellectual godfather to today’s environmental movement. This is a shame; his philosophy was vicious and anti-human to its core.
Like Locke, he thought that man in the state of nature was basically good. Locke also thought man was better off in civil society than in the state of nature.
Rousseau, on the other hand, thought man better off in nature than in civil society. He denounced civilization itself and had a distaste for any technology, even as fundamental as fire, fishhooks, or bows and arrows.
His ideal man was solitary, meeting others only as necessary for procreation. Higher thought was to be avoided, as it may lead to dangerous ideas like property rights and civilization. Rousseau’s ideal man isn’t much different from any other animal, except that some primates and birds are known to use tools.
Despite all this, Rousseau chose to live most of his life in major cities such as Paris, Geneva, and Venice.
Nobody, not even Rousseau, denies the material and medical benefits of civilization. Knowing all this, he still placed humanity beneath his personal ideal of nature. People still believe this today; the more hardcore environmentalists advocate technological regress, and would gladly pay the price of a lower standard of living.
This also assumes that progress and technology are bad for the environment; not so.
Most people who consider themselves environmentalists haven’t thought this through. They should. This new religion of theirs can be dangerous for our health.
Inertia Wins! 