334 Conclusionof Trilogy
it comesas littlesurprisethatthe authorwhoinspiredGraber’s words,Bill McKibben,
revilesa certainphilosopherof libertyandtechnologicalentrepreneurialinnovation.It
happens,McKibbensniffs,that“everytimeI contemplateAynRandI findmyselfwish-
ing I’d beenbornto a differentspecies.”^11
It is alsoappropriatethatenemiesof capitalism,industrialization,andunregulated
technologicalinnovationwouldbegrudgeman’s initialstepstowardlandprivatization
and farming.It mustbe rememberedthatfarmingon privatelandwasan earlyexample
of humanitytechnologicallyrestructuringits surroundingsfor its ownprofit.Hence
Rousseaubemoansthe inceptionof agriculture,as thatwaswhen“propertywasintro-
duced.. ., and vastforestsbecamesmilingfields,whichmanhad to waterwiththe sweat
of his brow,” and where“misery” wasto “germinateand growup withthe crops.Metal-
lurgyand agriculturewerethe two arts whichproducedthis greatrevolution.... it was
ironandcorn,whichfirstcivilisedmen,andruinedhumanity.”^12 It willbe noticedthat
the processwherebyentrepreneursharnessednaturalphenomenafor industrialends
wouldnot haveoccurredwereit not for theirself-interestedexerciseof rationality.It
wouldnot havehappenedwereit not for science.On thesegrounds,Rousseaudeter-
minesit urgentto denouncerationalityas such.He faultsancientGreecefor being“the
inventorof the sciences.” Thenhe flatlyasserts,providingnot a whiffof evidentiary
support,thatsciencewasbornof the “moralphilosophyof humanpride.” Bypride, he
doesnot meanthe healthyself-esteemthat comeswithefficaciouslyand peaceablypursu-
ing one’s one happiness—the sortof pridethatgaineda positivereputationin the late
twentiethcenturythanksin somepartto AynRand.On the contrary,Rousseauis allud-
ing to the sort of arrogancethatinsecuremenhavealwaystriedto passoff as pride,and
whichChristianconservativeshaverepeatedlyusedas theirstrawmanin attemptto
discreditany legitimateconceptof healthyself-esteem.
TheHuguenotphilosopherultimatelyconcludes,“Thusthe artsandsciencesowe
theirbirthto our vices.. .”^13
CambridgeUniversitybiochemistTerenceH. KealeyaptlyparaphrasesRousseau’s
anti-mind,anti-science,anti-individualist,anti-technology,anti-commerceperspective.
“The enslavementof Manoccurredthroughcapitalism,whichoriginatedin privateprop-
erty... the ownershipof propertyencouragedits ownersto improveit, whichcaused
themto fosterscienceand technology.. .” Thisis bad,as “underthe distortionsinduced
by reason(whichis emotionallysterile),by capitalism(whichinflamesgreed)andby
privateproperty(whichisolatesanddestroyssympathy)a man’s personalitydegrades,
and he becomespsychologicallyalienated...fromotherpeople.His selfishnessgrowsinto
a devouringmonsterof vanityand egotism,amour-propre.” Rousseau’s influencehas been
pernicious.Kealeynotesthatpriorto Rousseau,Renaissancepoetssuchas JohnMilton
celebratedGalileoandotherscientists.Subsequentto Rousseau’s ascensionto fame,Ro-
manticistphilosophyemergedand it becamefashionablefor litterateursto “despisescien-
tists” andentrepreneursas “emotionalcripples,in hockto materialism,vaingloryand
greed.”^14
Rousseauevidentlydid not havethe courage,however,to admitthat he fullyopposed
the institutionof privatepropertyrights.He contradictedhimselfby statingthathe be-
lievedprivatepropertyrightsto be extremelyimportant,but thatthe governmentcould
still justlynullifysuchrightswhenthe commongoodrequiredit. “It is certainthatthe
rightof propertyis the mostsacredof all the rights... On the otherhand,it is no less
certainthatthe maintenanceof the Stateandthe governmentinvolvescostsandoutgo-
ings;and as everyone whoagreesto the end mustacquiescein the means,it followsthat
the membersof a societyoughtto contributefromtheirpropertyto its support.Besides,it
is difficultto securethe propertyof individualson oneside,withoutattackingit on
another;and it is impossiblethat all the regulationswhichgovernthe orderof succession,