Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end world poverty and hunger. Others say that economic growth is damaging the environment and should stop. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

There is no doubt that economic development plays an essential role in many parts of the world. While some believe that it is the only solution to starvation and poverty, I would agree with those who claim that

this

would have detrimental effects on the environment and should be perpetuated. In

Firstly

,

A

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

solid economic progress might play an incentive part in tackling hunger and poverty.

This

is because a highly developed economy often goes with plenty of job opportunities.

For example

, multinational companies would bring jobs by taking place their factories to developing countries, which means that people can make a living from them.

Conversely

, if governments cannot make any progress, they are not likely to substantially invest in the agricultural sector.

Consequently

, the farmers might be lost their crops due to pests. The environmental detriments, as a consequence, can arise from these two above benefits. With regard to the former, industrialization coupled with economic growth, has resulted in ever-increasing environmental pollution, meaning that factories pollute the air by releasing gas emissions into the atmosphere on a daily basis, whereas contaminants are being discharged into the river. As for the latter, people often overuse =advanced farming methods. For instance, the more people try to protect their harvests, the more chemical fertilizer is pumped into the soil.

As a result

, the government should environmentally put foreign companies under control and make use of friendly technology for a sustainable nature. In conclusion, 

although

the advantages of abundance and wealth can positively contribute to society, from my point of view, environment-related drawbacks can possibly be overcome.