HISTORY OF IDEAS: Sample Response Papers  (325 and 350 words)

            Locke is absolutely right to follow the logic that raw materials and natural resources, when wrought from the earth and labored upon by man, are in turn made more valuable.  That the labor of man should be included in the value of a product is a perfectly legitimate, valid argument.  However, how was Locke to know in 1690 that this self same labor with the capability to increase the value of natural resources could and would oppositely devalue them?  Furthermore, Locke views nature as a wilderness that need be tamed by man because it is otherwise useless.  Even if we are not in agreement with the later Romantic thinkers who find aesthetic value in nature we can still see that having no esteem for the environment has caused its utter degradation. 

               In depleting the natural resources they have indeed increased in value and therefore it is not simply our labor that gives them value.  The concept that all land should be labored upon spread like fire across America until that “fertile soil” that Locke wrote about centuries ago became less and less fertile.  Finally, farmers resorted to the use of unnatural chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides, which in turn, caused genetically stronger pests and the further degradation of land and soil.  Because of this, the labor upon land can most definitely benefit all and increase the value of resources, but this labor must be done responsibly and sustainability with respect to nature and its intrinsic value.  In fact, I believe that labor is not completely inputted into economics even today; the labor in homes that is completely unaccounted for that is beneficial to all in a community. However, the point is that perhaps the freedom of a man to labor as much land as he wants, in whatever manner he wishes, to reap the most immediate economic gain can lead to exploitation that does not benefit all but actually harms everyone in the long run.

 

Locke argues that one man using land to provide just for his own needs still benefits the whole of society. He justifies this through the idea that one acre of land, which is put to use, can only increases the value of the whole amount of land on earth by that much, no matter who contributes the labor. Locke values growth and production, accordingly any amount of labor and production is better than none.

Locke’s argument applies to an era full of underdeveloped production capabilities, unused land and virtually no sense of globalization. At that time increasing production and development, putting nature to our use, in any manner seemed naturally good. Sadly, our era is one full of enormous production capabilities, a frighteningly-fast loss of open land and a necessity to consider all actions on a global level.

Since the characteristics of the two time periods are so vastly different, Locke could never have foreseen the exaggerated extent to which his argument would be illustrated in the 20^th and 21^st century. I do agree that the idea of being proactive and making use of your resources is better than doing nothing. My opinion differs at the fact that, today we have put more than enough land to use. Moreover, we use that land inappropriately and do not distribute its commodities efficiently or equally across the planet. On the contrary, many people still starving and homeless, while everyday millions of pounds of food and resources are carelessly wasted. Considering that, it is no longer appropriate to say that one individual using open land to produce for the own needs benefits the world as a whole because today that act actually is at the expense of others.

We should no longer be concerned with building up the globe for production. Rather, we must understand that we have pushed the extent of production and hoarding of wealth so far out of control that we have lost that freedom to indulge. Each acre of land we use now takes away from the value of the earth rather than enhances it.