It is believed by some people that the development in economy is the only measure to prevent poverty and hunger happening around the world, whilst others think that this development can cause disasters relating to our environment. From my perspective, I think both views have their own merits and should be considered greatly.
To begin with, economic growth is potentially the only effective method to solve global poorness and famine, because with the increase of financial situation in any particular country, through the popularity of any field, can help people to earn more money by enhancing job opportunities. For example, when a nation’s finance rises because of the development of tourism, local individuals, especially the jobless, can have a chance to receive any job relating to tourism or local services in order to serve travelers, leading to the surge in local people’s income. Because of this, poverty and hunger in that country can be reduced, and when more and more nations are having a growth in economy, poverty and famine can be stopped significantly as a result.
Regarding the other view, economic growth, to some extent, can contribute to environmental catastrophes, as some fields may require environmental resources so as to continue developing. Taking paper-making field as a prime example, in order to produce a large number of papers used for making books, trees have to be cut down. As a consequence, when the number of trees is decrease, nations can have a problem in preventing floods from happening and can possibly face destructions.
Overall, while economic development is able to solve global poverty and food insecurity, it can cause disasters to some extent. An effective way to deal with both issues is taking the two views into account and maintaining the rise in economy, while still noticing the possibility of environmental disasters at the same time.