Some people think a simple lifestyle can preserve the environment, while others argue that technology itself can solve it . Discuss both views and give your opinions

It is often said that maintaining our planet is the paramount role that every single individual must take into consideration. A few folks believe that having a basic way of living can sustain the environment;

however

, others visualize that modernization will save it. I agree with the first view and put my points as follows.

To begin

with, having a non-luxurious activity does not mean that you are not living full of life,but you can have both natural resources and precious lives.

For instance

, living in a rustic area

along with

their sheep means that they are not greedy.

Hence

, they are not extending local fields, so protecting the climate.

In addition

, simplicity leads to being good with habitat, retaining the wildlife and forest in tandem, and

last

but not least they are using public transport and cycling rather than using their own cars

as a result

preventing climate change problems.

In contrast

, with the advent of technology, more areas have been invaded. To illustrate, mankind produces crude oil both offshore and onshore which is, in turn, threatening marine and land life.

In addition

,

huge

Add an article

a huge

the huge

show examples

number of cars

due to

the advancement of automation and greenhouse places to produce non-organic crops has caused air pollution by emitting a plethora of fumes into the atmosphere. What's more, there are a huge number of passengers who commute annually by aeroplane which pollutes the air. All things considered,

although

technology has brought massive convenient appliances;

however

, it has a detrimental effect on our natural resources. I believe the more life is simple, the better environment we have.

As a result

, less ground will be used, so wildlife will be alive forever.