It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote areas with natural environments, such as the South Pole. Is it a positive or negative development?

Given the availability of modern means of transport such as planes and cruise ships, and refrigeration technologies, traveling to remote parts of the world is no longer an impossible task. I believe that this possibility benefits both tourists and scientists. Exploring far-flung natural places can be beneficial to travelers. No matter how many tourist attractions there are in the world, globetrotters all around the world still crave novelty, for example in the form of new activities or untouched destinations. By traveling to an island that is unknown to the vast majority of people, for instance, travelers may have a chance to participate in exotic religious practices of indigenous people, feast their eyes on rarely seen plants and animals and try new food, and experience a whole new way of life. Although it is true that they can see these things on TV channels dedicated to travel, the experience is far inferior to experiencing such activities in person. Scientists can also benefit from visiting untouched parts of the world. Regardless of how much we already know about the world, there is still much that is unknown in the world of science, and visiting such places could give scientists answers to many existing and future problems. We can see this in the way novel viruses break out every once in a while, and how global warming is affecting lives and habitats of elusive animals living in heavily wooded areas and deep under the sea. If we understand more about such phenomena, we will be much more prepared for potential outbreaks that could kill millions in the future and help restore damaged habitats. In conclusion, visiting remote areas of the world can impart otherwise unachievable experiences and lessons to tourists and people in the scientific world.