nature vs people

[NYT]

It has long been a debate which is more important in our society; lives of people or the surrounding nature. We need to feed the people living right at this moment, and also those people who will be living in the next generation. Is there only 2 choices we have to solve this problem; save people's lives and kill the nature, or save the nature and kill people's lives? Isn't there a way we can save both?

I think there is. We human beings like to adhere to what we are used to and unchanged environment, but we need to change the behaviour in order to live and to last our descendant. There is so much to learn from the past, but it doesn't mean we need to continue the past. We know dated technologies and facilities are harmful - so change it. We know people need clean and green jobs - so make it. We know we need the sustainable environment - so save it. And we know there are money used for killing and hurting people - why don't we convince those people to use the money wisely?