Some people think that economic growth is the only way to end the hungry and poverty.others think that it damages the environment and now it must be stopped. Discuss both the views and give your own opinion.

It is believed the financial aids will solve the problems of food and shelter but the sources of it are unfriendly to the ecosystem and it must be checked. In my opinion, although urbanization improves the economy, the drawbacks are huge and addressing them correctly will cost a fortune. Growing infrastructure will provide money which helps in providing sufficient accommodation and meals to millions of people who are unable to afford living. Supporting them in possible areas, such as education, agriculture and health sectors, allow to survive and sustain in peace. Therefore, the learning and earning from this system form a river of wealth which can be continuously applied in various development stages. For example, an article in the New York Times reaveled that 88% of developed countries are enjoying the advantages of their economic welfare by mitigating the barriers of below poverty line and scarity if edable items. However, construction of many buildings that lead to deforestation, the key factors, affacting the mother nature of the earth. In order to establish a commercial complex, many tress are being cut down and the machinaries used in this produce toxic gases. The whole process fasten the development but its ill effects are uncomparable, causing plethora of diseases, and uneventful natural calamities namely earthquake, draught, flood and volcano eruption etc. For instance the great disaster of Tsunami cost millions of people live and 80% of the victims are homeless and without ant property. In conclusion, there must be limitation in using natural resources as it will save our futures. Therefor, I think the economical utilization of natural property will defenitely enhance our economic growth and provide sufficient food and dwelling areas.