His understanding of the drive for self-preservation and compassion builds upon an extremely primitive form of darwinian evolution. Due to the simple imagination of evolution, there are several aspects of Rousseau’s hypothetical history that seem inaccurate when compared to a current understanding of evolution. Rousseau’s understanding of the drive to survive is predicated on the noble savage’s own survival when in fact it has more to due with carrying on his genes. Second, the concept of compassion seems to have arisen after society has been built, not prior. While his hypothetical history may be inaccurate, these two points seem to be relatively inconsequential to his overall political philosophy. The real kicker comes in the way that evolution has shaped a sense of property in humans through game theory and natural selection. This seems to defeat his whole concept of private property (or rather the lack thereof) for Rousseau and actually support Locke’s concept of natural rights to private property. Since Rousseau’s pyramid seems to be built on a cynical view of private property and the struggle between the rich and the poor, an evolutionary basis for property might actually topple his grand architectural masterpiece of the social contract instead of propping it