However, the curious one is the following one: as much those that are benefited, as the ones that are not embark in the tecnolotria, and become enslaved of it. The ones that is benefited become enslaved for being vitiated in the benefits. The ones that is not benefited become enslaved for being prisoners of the desire for the benefit that they do not enjoy. In other words, they are prisoners of what it has, others are prisoners of what it does not have but they desire to have. Ahead of everything what until we comment here, we can clarify the difference between natural inaquality and social inaquality.
If thus express the citizen of Geneva in ' ' second discurso' ' affirming that they are of two types: ' ' one that I call natural or physical, for being established by the nature and that he consists of the difference of the ages, the health, the forces of the body and the qualities of the spirit and the soul; to another one, that if can call inaquality moral or politics, because it depends on a species of convention and that it is established or at least authorized for the assent of homens' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 39). The inaquality politics is established socially, or can say that it is established civilizadamente objectifying to mask or to justify privileges or dominations of ones on others. It seems us that even so Rousseau uses the word ' ' desigualdade' ' indistintivamente (in such a way for the natural plan as the inaquality established for and in the civilization), we can easily notice the difference that refers to the content. Then, what Rousseau calls natural inaquality consists much more as difference factor, since he is unprovided of social valorativo content (good and badly). The natural inaquality can be understood as difference. On the other hand, and inaquality properly said is the social one or civilized, it is established of artificial form and it brings in its seio only existing aspects in the plan of the sociability: domination, exploration.