Environmental pollution and housing problems remain a highly controversial issue generating polarized public opinion. Proponents of this claim that it is necessary for governments to aim to avoid illness and disease. However, I believe that focusing on decreasing pollution and improving housing is crucial. Strong arguments exist in support of both sides of this debate, which implies that it is worth examining both points of view before reaching any conclusions.
There are several advantages associated with reducing environmental pollution and housing problems to prevent illness and disease. The main benefit of minimizing this is that humans can have better habitats, which is linked to our health. If we live in a city that has many problems, such as air pollution, light pollution, water pollution, or noise pollution, it can lead to poor environmental conditions, which can easily create disease. What is more, it is maintained that overcrowding and lack of sanitation are also reasons the reason why citizens get ill because of the mold rising in water that is not yet sorted, such as in lakes and ponds. Furthermore, overcrowding can spread pandemics more easily, as in the COVID-19 pandemic.
On the other hand, decreasing environmental pollution and improving housing has various downsides. One major disadvantage is the role of our lifestyle and education in the reason why our health condition is bad, not the natural environment itself. An example of this is that few people make the environment more polluted by smoking and tossing trash into water. Housing is also not the only essential problem that leads to disease.
All things considered, I firmly feel that reducing environmental problems and housing problems may help stop illness but are not the only reasons the reason why we have disease.