There’s a notion among people that increasement in economic is the unique option to end world poverty and hunger. Others, however, support the idea of stopping economic growth, as it is affecting negatively to the natural world. I agree with the former view.
One key reason for proponents considering economic growth as an only way to put an end to neediness and starvation is would be job creation. As country develops its financial needs, it leads to creation of new jobs. It’s obvious that these days unemployment rate is high in many countries. Thus, can be beneficial for local residents who are struggling to find job to cover their needs. The second major reason could be rise in incomes. Increasement in national income can give individuals to get higher salaries.
However, the opponents of this view argue that financial growth causing pollution to the air and water. In addition, they believe that government should stop it as soon as possible. It’s true that economic development created climate change which is today’s main problem. Another argument is that, overconsumption of resources. In order to develop economically cities need to use some kind of energy sources. Critics argue that, these days fossil fuels are being overused. If humans don’t take it into consideration, fossil fuels can be lost in recent decades as they are non renewable energy sources.
These arguments notwithstanding, I still favor that in order to reduce the poverty countries need to develop their finance. There are still so many areas where people living in poor lives. In addition,it’s clear that there are technology isn’t developed and they are far away from the opportunities we already have.
In conclusion, although economic expansion no doubt yields negative affects to the environment, such as pollution and waste of resources. Therefore, poverty and hunger can’t be ended without development in finance.