Some people think that economic development is the only way to end world poverty and hunger. Others argue that economic development is damaging the environment and needs to stop. Discuss both sides and give your own opinion.

Some people assume that

poverty

and hunger can be solved by economic growth, whilst others think that economic development has detrimental effects on the environment. Whilst I tend towards the viewpoint that economic development is the best way to end world

poverty

, I would have to support the statement that it is devastating to our nature. On the one hand, economic growth can deteriorate

poverty

as well as

starvation. It means that the government can get positive outcomes financially from the economy, namely trade and connections with other countries can help to reduce issues. As an example, if the budget gets more money, it can be contributed to residents to give them basic needs.

Hence

, it is vital to get aid from the government to decrease of having hunger and

poverty

.

On the other hand

, economic development lead to negative aspects

such

as devastating the environment.

In other words

, the majority of ways in order to boost the economy require sources from nature, Fir instance, digging for coal or fuel may have an awful influence on the environment, releasing carbon into the air

while

manufacturing causes peril to all human beings, namely air pollution and global warming .

Thus

, we should inhibit processes leading to damage to our world

as well as

citizens , and keep only the ways to improve the economy by not using unsustainable sources from the earth.

To conclude

, even though there are positive outcomes regarding decreasing

poverty

and starvation rates, I assume that using unsustainable sources would be the worst idea because it has longer-lasting effects which will lead to catastrophic occasions for all residents of the earth.