Throughout Discourse on the Origin Inequality, Rousseau critiques the idea of progress, arguing that societal advancements create illusions of improvement while amplifying inequality, fostering dependence, and corrupting human values. He challenges the notion that progress benefits humanity, suggesting instead that it distances people from the natural simplicity and freedom of their origins. Rousseau contrasts the self-sufficiency of early humans with the dependence introduced by societal developments. In the state of nature, individuals lived simply, relying on their natural abilities for survival. They crafted tools and met their needs without external support or the pressures of comparison. For instance, a person might hunt or gather food without needing to trade or compete for resources. This independence allowed them to live free from domination or exploitation.
However, society’s progress brought about technologies and institutions that created hierarchies and dependencies. Rousseau highlights the division of labor as a critical turning point. A farmer, for example, once grew food solely for personal sustenance but now relies on tools produced by others, trade networks, and societal systems for survival. This interdependence fosters inequality, as those who control resources and tools gain power over those who do not. What appears as progress—such as improved agricultural techniques—ultimately serves to consolidate wealth and privilege among the few. Rousseau argues that these advancements do not lead to true human improvement but instead promote exploitation and moral corruption. The illusion of progress conceals the ways in which new technologies can entrench inequality and dependence, replacing natural freedom with artificial hierarchies. In Rousseau’s view, genuine human well-being lies not in technological or societal advances but in preserving the simplicity and equality of the natural state.
The Illusion of Progress ThemeTracker

The Illusion of Progress Quotes in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
Of all the branches of human knowledge, the most useful and the least advanced seems to me to be that of man; and I dare say that the inscription on the temple at Delphi alone contained a precept more important and more difficult than all the huge tomes of the moralists. Thus I regard the subject of this discourse as one of the most interesting questions that philosophy is capable of proposing, and unhappily for us, one of the thorniest that philosophers can attempt to resolve. For how can the source of the inequality among men be known unless one begins knowing men themselves? And how will man be successful in seeing himself as nature formed him, through all the changes that the succession of time and things must have produced in his original constitution […] ?
Since the savage man’s body is the only instrument he knows, he employs it for a variety of purposes that, for lack of practice, ours are incapable of serving. And our industry deprives us of the force and agility that necessity obliges him to acquire. If he had had an axe, would his wrists break such strong branches? If he had had a sling, would he throw a stone with so much force? […] Give a civilized man time to gather all of his machines around him, and undoubtedly he will easily overcome a savage man. But if you want to see an even more unequal fight, pit them against each other naked and disarmed, and you will soon realize the advantage of constantly having all of one’s forces at one’s disposal, of always being ready for any event, and of always carrying one’s entire self, as it were, with one.
Let us consider how many ideas we owe to the use of speech; how much grammar trains and facilitates the operations of the mind. And let us think of the inconceivable difficulties and the infinite amount of time that the first invention of languages must have cost. Let us join their reflections to the preceding ones, and we will be in a position to judge how many thousands of centuries would have been necessary to develop successively in the human mind the operations of which it was capable.
Above all, let us not conclude with Hobbes that because man has no idea of goodness he is naturally evil […] we could say that savages are not evil precisely because they do not know what it is to be good; for it is neither the development of enlightenment nor the restraint imposed by the law, but the calm of the passions and the ignorance of vice which prevents them from doing evil. So much more profitable to these is the ignorance of vice than the knowledge of virtue is to those.
These first advances enabled man to make more rapid ones. The more the mind was enlightened, the more industry was perfected. Soon they ceased to fall asleep under the first tree or to retreat into caves, and found various types of hatchets made of hard, sharp stones, which served to cut wood, dig up the soil, and make huts from branches they found it useful to cover with clay and mud. This was the period of a first revolution which formed the establishment of the distinction among families and which introduced a kind of property, whence perhaps there already arose many quarrels and fights.
Young people of different sexes live in neighboring huts; the passing intercourse demanded by nature soon leads to another, through frequent contact with one another, no less sweet and more permanent. People become accustomed to consider different objects and to make comparisons. Imperceptibly they acquire the ideas of merit and beauty which produce feelings of preference. By dint of seeing one another, they can no longer get along without seeing one another again. A sweet and tender feeling insinuates itself into the soul and at the least opposition becomes an impetuous fury. Jealousy awakens with love; discord triumphs, and the sweetest passion receives sacrifices of human blood.
It is from the bosom of this disorder and these upheavals that despotism by gradually raising its hideous head and devouring everything it had seen to be good and healthy in every part of the state, would eventually succeed in trampling underfoot the laws and the people, and in establishing itself on the ruins of the republic […] Here is the final stage of inequality, and the extreme point that closes the circle and touches the point from which we started. Here all private individuals become equals again, because they are nothing.