Some people say that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, while others say that economic growth is damaging the environment so it must be stopped. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Sample 1:

It is true that some people contend that economic growth is the only solution to the global problems of hunger and poverty. Others, however, argue for an end to economic growth to conserve our environment. I agree completely with this second view.

Those who see economic growth alone as the sole cure for the tragedy of world hunger and poverty propose one major argument. Only the growth of the economies of developing countries will provide the poor with the wealth to afford the basic necessities of life. The profits made by corporations that are responsible for this economic growth will trickle down in the form of financial benefits to be enjoyed by the starving and needy. This view has justified the age of imperialism and the destruction of the livelihood of millions in the name of progress.

On the other hand, there are countless examples to support the opposing view that economic growth results in environmental destruction. Firstly, this is true for developing countries, where lowland rainforests have been cleared and unsustainable agricultural practices introduced to produce cash crops, often for export. Secondly, it is also true for developed economies. For example, the continued use of fossil fuels, which provide the energy for growing industrialization, causes global warming. This leads to a rise in sea levels, which will eventually make tens of millions of poor people in Bangladesh homeless.

In conclusion, economic growth which is not sustainable must be stopped. If it is not based on meeting human needs rather than generating profits, such growth will only create more poverty and lead to more hunger in the world by destroying natural resources.

Sample 2:

It is widely acknowledged that many parts of the world are still struggling with abject poverty and hunger. While a school of thought holds that these thorny problems are best dealt with by developing the economy prosperously, others claim that this solution is synonymous with wreaking havoc on the environment and thus it should come to a halt. This essay would discuss both views before drawing a reasoned conclusion.

Economic growth is irrefutably central to lifting a country out of austerity and hardship. Obviously, the rapid development of the national economy could markedly boost disposable incomes and living standards of citizens. Increased life quality aside, economic progression could go a long way towards addressing pressing social issues such as crime and unemployment, which is instrumental in turning poverty-stricken countries into more livable and affluent ones. However, there exist other ways to cope with poverty and hunger. In particular, education and healthcare could provide a more educated and physically adequate workforce to elevate a nation out of poverty.

The aforementioned benefits notwithstanding, the rapid development of the economic situation could inevitably do the environment a disservice. In fact, manufacturing and transportation activities have been releasing a staggering amount of carbon emissions and effluents, triggering serious air and water contamination. Regardless, instead of curbing economic growth, the government can impose more stringent punishments on individuals and organizations that are advertently doing harm to the environment. For example, in South Korea, the state has administered more stringent punishments on factories and plants that deliberately discharge an excessive amount of harmful chemicals into the air and water sources, resulting in improved environmental quality in this nation.

In conclusion, growing the economy is not the only way to address pressing issues like poverty and starvation as educational and healthcare support are also critical. The government should develop the economy in a more sustainable way that could effectively safeguard the environment rather than halting it.

Sample 3:

In the contemporary world, the debate between the necessity of economic growth and its environmental repercussions has become increasingly pronounced. While some argue that economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty, a growing faction insists that such growth is environmentally unsustainable, advocating for its cessation. This essay aims to explore both perspectives, ultimately positing that a balanced approach is essential for sustainable development.

Proponents of economic growth as a panacea for poverty and hunger assert that it catalyzes job creation, bolsters income levels, and substantially elevates living standards. By embracing the assertion that "economic growth is the only way to end hunger and poverty," they illuminate the transformative journeys of nations like China and India, which have propelled millions out of poverty through dynamic economic progression. This viewpoint emphasizes the conviction that, when judiciously orchestrated, economic expansion can furnish indispensable resources for comprehensive social welfare programs, advanced healthcare, and quality education, effectively diminishing poverty indices and significantly bolstering food security across communities.

Conversely, critics of unchecked economic growth spotlight its adverse impacts on the environment, arguing that it precipitates resource exhaustion, pollution escalation, and stark biodiversity erosion. This faction underscores that the relentless pursuit of growth frequently overlooks substantial environmental costs, including the exacerbated greenhouse gas emissions that intensify global warming. Advocating for sustainable growth paradigms that integrate environmental stewardship, they champion the adoption of renewable energy sources, sustainable agricultural practices, and innovative green technologies. From this vantage point, the discourse evolves to suggest that economic growth need not be abandoned but thoughtfully redefined to ensure its alignment with ecological preservation, thereby fostering a sustainable future for both the economy and the environment.

In conclusion, while economic growth has undeniably played a crucial role in reducing poverty and hunger, its environmental implications cannot be ignored. A holistic approach, marrying economic development with environmental sustainability, emerges as the most prudent path forward. By fostering innovations that ensure economic growth does not come at the expense of our planet, we can strive towards a future where both humanity and nature thrive in harmony.

Sample 4:

There are opposing views regarding economic growth and the environment, as people tend to think that these two are mutually exclusive and believe that only an economic growth can address the hunger and destitution. In my opinion, along with its negative on the environment, economic ballooning is not the only creditworthy to alleviate the penury. This essay is going to discuss how economic prosperity brings an income security at the expense of environmental damage by deforestation.

Economic growth is crucial to ensure people in society to have stable jobs. People with a consistent income can easily meet their basic needs and ensure their safety by all means, and mostly they can live a longer life. In fact, the economic stability keeps people active with a sense of financial security, which eventually helps them to prosper in their every sphere of life. Furthermore, there is without a doubt that the unemployment rate is usually lower in countries which have prosperous economic growth. Most people have a stable income and fewer chances of being broke. They do not need to struggle for living.

However, an economic growth comes at the cost of a serious negative effect on the environment. For example, companies cut down a lot of trees in order to build high-rise commercial buildings. Deforestation will affect the environment and lead to global warming. Furthermore, various manufacturing plants operate through biochemical processes which can cause ecological disasters. And also, by releasing environmentally hazardous chemical compounds, industries are constantly contaminating the environment, which is pushing various species to the verge of extinction.

Even though economic growth could help to reduce destitution, it comes at the expense of the environmental degradation causing deforestation and animal extinction. Weighing in both sides, I believe that economic ballooning cannot be the only contributor to alleviate poverty, as it creates a serious ecological damage alongside.

Sample 5:

A section of people believes that economic prosperity is the only method towards ending famine and poverty, since it provides more job vacancies. Whereas others think that this growth must be seized due to its harmful effects on the environment, such as pollution. However, this essay views that initially an economic growth might be achieved at the expense of the environment, but eventually it compensates the environmental damage by generating much needed employments and overall financial well beings. The following paragraphs will discuss both sides of views, along with my opinion afterwards.

To begin with, financial growth generally provides more job opportunities in the market. In other words, companies will need more employees to respond to the prolific market’s demands. Therefore, people will benefit from the wages received to afford goods, food, and many other life’s demands. In Ethiopia, the government is encouraging investors to build factories so the poor residents can benefit from working and earning money, thereby ending famine and poverty.

On the other hand, many believe that economic prosperity means more pollution, since more factories will be working and therefore a rise in the toxic emissions in the air. In fact, the reason why China is among the countries with the highest rate of pollution is the thousands of factories working daily to produce more goods. However, I think that a growth in the economy is the only solution to end food and money shortage since it leads to providing more jobs to unemployed people.

To conclude, economic prosperity is seen by many to be advantageous since it ends hunger and poverty by providing more jobs and financial support to the people in need. However, many advocate that this prosperity takes its toll on the environment by polluting the air. I think a growth in the economic situation of a country will definitely stop food and money shortage due to a rise in the employment sector.

Sample 6:

In today’s contemporary society, there is an intense debate about prioritizing economic development. Some argue that this priority should be stopped due to its negative impacts on the environment, while others, including myself, believe that it is crucial to continue boosting the economy as it is the primary financial source to combat hunger and poverty.

It is acknowledged that economic development does have some adverse effects on the environment. The expansion of industrial zones and recreational centers has led to deforestation and habitat loss for various animals. Additionally, untreated waste from factories contributes significantly to air and water pollution. However, these environmental issues can be mitigated through well-planned urbanization and stricter regulations without halting economic activities.

On the contrary, I assert that economic growth is essential for addressing hunger and poverty. Firstly, it enables the establishment of educational institutions, providing residents with necessary knowledge and skills for decent employment. This, in turn, helps people afford daily necessities, especially food, lifting them out of poverty. Secondly, governments can implement monetary subsidies and food programs for the needy, but these initiatives require significant economic resources.

In conclusion, while economic development may contribute to environmental degradation, it can be managed alongside sustainable practices. Economic growth remains crucial in tackling hunger and poverty effectively, making it a priority for a better society.

Sample 7:

Many people believe economic development is the only solution to end hunger and poverty, while others think that economic growth should be stopped due to the harmful effects it has on the environment. In this essay, I will examine both arguments and then give my personal opinion.

It is true that economic growth has taken a heavy toll on the environment. Firstly, the ever-increasing demand for industrial development has led to the construction of more factories and manufacturing facilities, which has significantly raised the volume of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which are considered to be the main culprit behind global warming. Furthermore, human activities, such as clearing forests for farming, are directly responsible for the loss of natural habitats for many wild plants and animals, pushing these species to the verge of extinction. This, together with the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, poses serious threats to the survival of mankind, especially with today’s rapidly increasing population.

However, trying to stop the economy from developing, due to the drawbacks, is not a rational approach, for economic growth is still the most effective measure to tackle poverty and hunger. A healthy economy will create more employment opportunities for those who come from underprivileged backgrounds, and thus ensure stable income for these people. Therefore, they will be able to earn enough money to cover basic living expenses. Besides this, economic growth also has a crucial role to play in the fight against hunger. With a more generous budget to invest in agricultural development, for example, governments can invest in modern machinery to automate the labour-intensive processes of growing and harvesting crops. Such a boost in productivity will increase food production and eventually put an end to hunger.

In conclusion, it is understandable why many people believe that economic growth should be stopped to protect our environment, however, I think the government should not rely on such a desperate measure because the benefits brought about by economic growth, not only in the fight against poverty and hunger, are far more significant than the drawbacks.

Sample 8:

It is thought by a few people that, a growth of economy leads to environmental issues, and should not continue. I totally agree with this argument, even though it is believed that economic growth can help to end world poverty.

To begin with, an increase in the economy in some countries is usually contributed by industries. It is because industries can help to increase a country's income through export trading. For example, in the United Emirates Arab, their economy is growing because of the oil and mining industries. They are able to export their oil and mining resources to other countries. However, industry activities often generate pollution in the form of water and air pollution. This pollution can affect several environmental issues such as global warming and climate change, which can harm all species on the earth.

In fact, countries still can manage their economies side while protecting the environment. In order to solve this issue, governments can create a regulation for businesses in running their activities. For instance, a regulation for waste disposal for the industry to prevent the pollutant caused by the manufacturer activities. Then, for businesses that do not implement this regulation in their activities, they need to pay the fine and get a punishment, and they need to stop operating their businesses until they can solve the disposal issue. In addition, the business player itself can create a program of Corporate Social Responsibility with a focus on environmental activity, such as planting trees, or cleaning waste in certain areas.

To sum up, economic growth can harm the environment is a fact due to the activity that usually can generate pollutions which can lead to environmental issues. However, there are several solutions to solve this issue by creating a regulation for the waste disposal process and Corporate Social Responsibility events.

Sample 9:

Nowadays, the controversial issue of balancing environmental protection with economic growth has captured our attention more than ever. While some believe that developing the economy is crucial for improving our general lives, others argue that it has a detrimental effect on the environment and must be halted. I align myself with the latter and this essay will provide details explaining why.

On one hand, the proponents of a stronger economy may argue that it can alleviate poverty and enhance many aspects of life. This is because economic growth can improve living standards, provide better education opportunities, and generate more job prospects. For example, the establishment of new factories creates employment opportunities. This leads to increased incomes and self-sufficiency for the less fortunate.

On the other hand, the pursuit of development comes at a significant environmental cost, resulting in uncontrollable ecological footprints that contaminate our rivers and streams. These harmful actions have the potential to irreversibly damage our natural surroundings. In recent decades, nature has retaliated with numerous calamities, such as hailstorms and earthquakes, indicating the consequences of our unsustainable practices. Therefore, if we do not take immediate action, we risk compromising our ability to enjoy the benefits of economic growth.

In conclusion, although it is undeniable that a growing economy can upgrade people’s lives, the preservation of nature should be prioritised. In my opinion, we still can pursue economic development, but we should not neglect its impacts on the environment. By doing so, we can work towards eliminating all disastrous effects.

Sample 10:

People have different views about whether economic development is positive or not for humans and our planet Earth. While some people argue that economic growth may lead to environmental problems, I believe that it is an essential factor to cope with poverty issues and some measures can be taken to tackle the problems caused by it.

On the one hand, economic growth is vital for dealing with poverty problems. A healthy economy is an important financial source for governments and having sufficient revenue is essential to invest in infrastructure and other industries, which can help to improve the quality of life for impoverished populations. For example, governments need money to build social housing and provide free food for the poor. Besides, individuals can also benefit from a growing economy because it can provide job opportunities to residents. Without a healthy economy, both authorities and individuals will be difficult to live a prosperous future.

On the other hand, it is true that economic developments have led to several environmental problems. Firstly, exhaust fumes produced by the growing number of vehicles and carbon dioxide gases emitted by industrial factories have resulted in severe air pollution and the greenhouse effect. This has led to climate change, and thousands of inhabitants are displaced because of floods and poor air quality. Secondly, water pollution can be seen in developing countries because there are no proper regulations with regard to the protection of the environment. Businessmen only care about making a profit and they pay no attention to the treatment of sewage. However, this does not mean that we should stop pursuing economic development. Stringent laws should be introduced by governments, and we can also do something to help to reduce environmental problems.

In conclusion, although a booming economy may lead to some environmental issues, I believe that economic growth is essential to us to end poverty and food crisis, and measures should be taken by governments and individuals to cope with such problems.