▶ Your Answer :
Some people think it’s
more important to support the arts than to protect the environment. However, in
my opinion, a company should give priority to preserving the environment rather
than developing the arts.
To begin with, investing
in the arts only can’t contribute to the very arts conclusively if irrespective
of environment. To illustrate, in my city, a municipal art museum has been
constructed in a greenbelt zone in spite of (the?) strong opposition. Manifold
flora and fauna lost(시제가 맞나요?)
their own habitats and left, subsequently, the surroundings has gone to ruin.
Of course, no one was willing to visit and exhibit their works in there. On the
other hand, one company built a park a decade ago which was used to be a
landfill. It became popular to citizens immediately, and recently it is
determined to exhibit artistic sculptures and to build a gallery. In other
words, it kills two birds with one stone.
On top of that, not
keeping the environment violates both human environmental and health rights.
Environmental rights are one of human basic rights, demonstrating that people
must afford to access and capitalize on environmental resources like clean
water, air, and food from nature. Let’s say about health rights. Environmental destruction
for the arts can let people in jeopardy as disease and accidents, threatening
their well-being. Two rights I mentioned are human fundamental rights, which
must be guaranteed prior to the arts.
To sum up, the environment
is a leading point that can keep the human rights as well as the arts. In this
regard, a company should make an investment in conserving the environment rather
than in backing the arts.
|