In Milton Friedman's controversial thesis that the social responsibly of business is to increase profits. However, this week, we know more about Rawls' view over the obligations to future generations. The most essential question we need to ask our self is do we have the responsibility to take control over the future environment? Before we answer this question, we need to be aware of the fact that corporations are playing the major role here. According to Friedman's point of view, he will only focus on the short terms, which is to increase profits and worry about whether or not the company makes enough profits to stockholders. Thus, Friedman will think that it's okay to destroy the environments in order to increase more profits. However, if we're all practicing this notion, what will be left in the future? Maybe not even 200 years later, the environment is already been dis-functional. Then, we will have nothing left, not even the profits that we were trying to generate 200 years ago. The idea of profits come first is horrible. Can you survive if you're getting 10, 20 percents less from profits? Yes! Now, can you survive when all of the living environments are gone? No more clean water, no more trees. Maybe not... It is important for us to leave some kind of decent environments to later generations. Perhaps there's a afterlife, and we all will just be returning to the same place where we were all belong to. Who knows?