When faced with the problem of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we should use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding People vs. Saving Nature” Rolston argues against this position and states that there are times when we should choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue Rolston's argument and against those, like Singer, who strongly oppose the idea that preserving nature and allowing people to die needlessly is morally wrong. In reality, there are many ways we can address the problem of global poverty without resorting to destroying the natural ecosystems on which we depend. In “Feeding People vs. Saving Nature” Rolston states his belief that in some cases the issues of feeding people and saving nature are in direct conflict with each other and a win-win outcome may not be possible. In these cases we must decide whether to feed people using the land and natural resources, or instead opt to save nature, leaving the poor to suffer. This topic is often framed in a way like, “You wouldn't let Ethiopians starve to save a few butterflies, would you?” (Page 504), Rolston criticizes this as being too simple an analogy that does not correctly represent his argument. It emphasizes the dependence of societies on a healthy environment as it is essential for agriculture, and that the availability of clean water is essential, and seeks to justify when and why the interests of nature should be paramount over those of feeding people, when a win-win outcome is not possible. To support his moral argument in favor of not helping the poor in the face of nature, he refers to a biblical quote in which...... middle of the paper ...... to be satisfied by protecting the environment from a serious degradation like those that have devastated the ecosystems and environment of Madagascar. Along with these, as a society, we must attempt to reduce resource consumption if we are to be able to support a growing population. Global poverty is a problem that needs to be addressed in our world, and there are many contradictory views on how we should solve it. the problem. Rolston argues that in theory we should sometimes think about saving nature rather than feeding the hungry, however, when examining these issues in a practical context, clearly the needs to save nature and feed people are not always directly in conflict with each other. By using sustainable development methods and other methods such as reducing our consumption, we may indeed be able to feed people and save nature at the same time..