Seidenberg 1

Cosette Seidenberg
English/3rd period
Mr. Swedlow
6 October 2016
Leopold
Nature is being taken advantage of; its getting destroyed and getting replaced with new
buildings, its something that was on Earth before we were. I will be talking about my views on
Milton Friedman and Aldo Leopold. Leopold believes we should preserve nature; while,
Friedman believes we dont have to save nature. Our product: the Crystal Geyser water bottle
isnt very eco friendly but our redesign is. Overall, I have decided to take Leopolds side in this
argument: he is correct because he wants to do whats best for both the citizens and nature and
believes that the two should have rights.
Leopold is a conservationist, forester, and wildlife ecologist who has a big concern about
the speed and impact of industrialization on the natural world and the relationships between
humans and nature. He believes that land should be loved and respected and doesnt think its ok
to just go out and destroy something so precious. Leopolds land ethic focuses mostly on the
impact of economic production on the land. According to Leopold We must stop viewing water,
plants, animals, and soil as mere resources to be exploited (865). He is right, we have to stop
taking advantage of our nature as resources. He argues that the land ethic simply enlarges the
boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the
land (Leopold 866). It is very true because having things like state parks brings the community
together and also believes that we abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to
us.

Seidenberg 2

Leopolds argument is valid because nature is such a beautiful thing and itd be a shame
to demolish it; were destroying so much land and theres people that dont realize it. We should
treat nature and land with love and respect as a community (Leopold). Were slowly
demolishing the nature in our world; instead, we should preserve it rather than destroy it and
build new things.
Milton Friedmans central insight is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an
intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain combinations of political
and economic arrangements are possible, and that in particular, a society which is socialist
cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom (15). He believes
that economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society (Friedman 15).
Friedman also believed that politics and economics were separate and extremely unconnected.
As Milton points out, economic freedom, in and itself, is an extremely important part of total
freedom (16). He says that every act of government intervention limits the area of individual
freedom directly and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly for reasons elaborated
(Friedman 34). When we allow the government to intervene, we are allowing them to gain more
power from us and thus limiting our power.
Although Im on Leopolds side of the argument, Friedman does make some good points.
As Leopold points out, conservation is a state of harmony between men and land (868). He
says that nature is a beautiful thing that we should preserve rather than destroy; but Friedman has
a good point as well, so many of our resources and products tie in with nature. Although the
reason for siding with Leopold is because he wants to preserve and take care of nature.
Friedman believes that we need to destroy nature to get our products and resources.
Friedman makes a good point about how we need to get our things from nature; however, what is

Seidenberg 3

missed here is that we shouldnt destroy a lot of the nature around us. It is true that we need to
destroy some nature because its used for most of the products we get, but it doesnt mean we
should demolish all of the free land around us. His moral argument is individual freedom: he
argues that every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom directly
and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly for reasons elaborated in the first chapter
(Friedman 34). He makes a point but we shouldnt go to the extent to where we demolish all of
our forests, state parks, etc. and try to make as much profit off of everything around us as
possible.
Our product: the Crystal Geyser water bottle is not good for nature but were definitely
trying to make it more eco friendly. We want to make our bottle out of glass instead of plastic:
glass is safer for the environment and its something you can use over and over again. The glass
were using doesnt contain any bad chemicals so its safe for the people; nevertheless, it doesnt
have bad chemicals in it. Using glass is a more expensive alternative but we can reuse it, recycle
it, and make it into new things.
Overall, Leopold is correct because he wants whats best for the citizens and nature.
Friedman; on the other hand, wants whats best for himself and the government. Friedmans goal
seems like he wants to make as much of a profit as possible. Leopolds goal is to protect nature
and the citizens, hes not all about the money and making as much of a profit as possible. Our
goal with our product is very similar; we want it to be affordable for everyone and we would like
it to be safe for our environment. His main priority is protecting both the citizens and nature:
destroying nature and its beauty and making fellow citizens pay for everything they want to do;
as simple as going to the park, doesnt seem socially or environmentally just. In conclusion, we
should protect nature because it was here on Earth before we were.

Seidenberg 4

Works Cited
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Leopold, Aldo. The Land Ethic. Oxford University Press, Inc.