Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, while others say that economic growth is damaging the environment so it must be stopped.
While some people argue that economic development can stop hunger and poverty, other people take the view that economic progress poses a negative impact on nature. In the following essay, I will examine both sides of the topic and present my opinion.
On one side of the argument, there are two main principal reasons why people believe that economic advancement is a solution to famine and destitution. Firstly, a country that has a thriving economy can create more employment opportunities for its citizens. By helping people who are unemployed make ends meet, the government diminishes the poverty rate of their country. Secondly, economic growth helps the government has more money to spend on public services. This means the government can allocate a budget to deal with the famine and provide financial support for the poor.
Despite the above arguments, I am of the view that economic progress harms the environment. One reason why I take this position is that the air quality in many metropolises which have a robust economy is getting worse due to pollution from traffic. For example, in Beijing, inhabitants must wear masks outdoors to protect themselves from pollutants which may result in serious respiratory illnesses. Furthermore, it is my firm belief that industrial development leads to the over-exploitation of natural resources. Therefore, the natural habitats of animals were destroyed because of deforestation, which result in the extinction of many species belonging to that areas.
In conclusion, while economic growth may bring some obvious benefits, it seems to me that a mighty economy destroys nature seriously.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
While some people argue that economic development can stop hunger and poverty, other people take the view that economic progress poses a negative impact on nature. In the following essay, I will examine both sides of the topic and present my opinion.
On one side of the argument, there are two main principal reasons why people believe that economic advancement is a solution to famine and destitution. Firstly, a country that has a thriving economy can create more employment opportunities for its citizens. By helping people who are unemployed make ends meet, the government diminishes the poverty rate of their country. Secondly, economic growth helps the government has more money to spend on public services. This means the government can allocate a budget to deal with the famine and provide financial support for the poor.
Despite the above arguments, I am of the view that economic progress harms the environment. One reason why I take this position is that the air quality in many metropolises which have a robust economy is getting worse due to pollution from traffic. For example, in Beijing, inhabitants must wear masks outdoors to protect themselves from pollutants which may result in serious respiratory illnesses. Furthermore, it is my firm belief that industrial development leads to the over-exploitation of natural resources. Therefore, the natural habitats of animals were destroyed because of deforestation, which result in the extinction of many species belonging to that areas.
In conclusion, while economic growth may bring some obvious benefits, it seems to me that a mighty economy destroys nature seriously.
