Can intellectual advancement lead to a general regression in our existence? Both Rousseau and Virilio deal with this question, but in very different ways. Rousseau examines this question in the broadest sense, by back tracking to the origin of intellect. Virilio, on the other hand, speaks of a very specific type of intellectual advancement, namely-the invention of a long range nuclear missile. Both would agree that intellectual progression can be advantageous to the human race, but whether or not the advantages outweigh the disadvantages is questionable.
             Rousseau argues that man existed in a ³natural state,² where he had basically no intellect. The ³natural man² did not speak, own property, or interact with other humans. This independent man, knew only compassion and how to survive. With intellect came evil. ³But by nature, man is good, self sufficient, compassionate to others when they do not threaten him, and incapable of pride, hatred, falsehood, and vice, society, precisely because it develops man¹s faculties, which corrupts him.² ( Rousseau, p. 20)Through the birth of property, man began to calculate and think. He saw what his fellow man had that he didn¹t, and became jealous. Now since man was able to see the nascent inequalities amongst each other, many evils arose. Rousseau makes it clear that mankind was better off without intellect.
             Virilio point of view on the matter can be inferred. He does not feel that man is better off in this ³natural state.² He is a twentieth century writer, who feels that technology is an overall good thing, but there are some very serious repercussions from certain technological advancements. In his essay he explains the negative repercussions of a long range nuclear missile. Since this missile can reach across half of the world in an insignificant amount of time, distance begins to disappear; if an enemy can be destroyed a few thousand miles away instantly, than it doesn¹t m
             ...