Do Free Market Means Justify Their Ends?

In Alan Greenspan's chapter “The Choices That Await China” (from The Age of Turbulence), he mentions the obstacles that China’s present and future leaders will encounter whilst transitioning to a nation of “developed” status. China seems like it would make an excellent case study for the transition (and a quick one!) from a centrally-planned economy to a capitalist one. When our country has taken roughly 2 centuries to become the industrial economy that shaped our current consumptive habits and lifestyles, it is worrisome to think of the detrimental effects of the same process happening over ¼ the time period and with more than 4x the people!!! Does this not worry those people who shout praise for the free market system’s past success in today’s current pro-market examples? I worry about the difference in scale when thinking about the goodness of the free-market outcomes. The cost-benefit balance is certainly different in today’s current state than it will be for the future regarding higher pollution, less natural space, and higher population densities, all of which (unless the exponential changes in technology work to solve problems regarding pollution, population, and natural space) will lead to even more exaggerated environmental consequences. Does Alan Greenspan (or others who similarly promote the free market as the most logical, best solution for all economies equipped to do so…e.g. those with strong, supportive legal institutions, etc.) consider these factors when he suggests that a free market system would ultimately lead to the greatest good in countries such as China? Do the means justify the ends?