In the past decade, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and abnormal weather have caused more disasters to humans than decades ago, which shows that the earth is becoming more and more hostile and dangerous to humans. This is the pursuit of high-speed economic development by humans. The price to destroy the ecological environment. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument? ? ['Economic development makes it possible for human beings to use high-tech means to reduce the risk of natural disasters.', 'Economic development does not necessarily lead to the deterioration of the global ecological environment.', 'The harm caused by natural disasters to humans is far lower than human disasters such as war and terrorism.', 'The population expansion and relative poverty caused by the imbalance of global economic development, make more and more people have to live in areas with bad ecological environment.']