It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as South pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

In term of innovation in technology, scientists and tourists currently are able to travel to isolated natural areas such as the South pole. While I accept that this development has some potential problems, I believe that its benefits are more significant. On the one hand, travelling to remote natural regions has some drawbacks. Firstly, because landing in a new place, participants need to meet many requirements to be competent for the journey. In addition, those people have to finish training courses and have the necessary knowledge to face dangerous situations such as being attacked by wild animals or running out of food. Secondly, the cost of travelling to isolated areas is exorbitant. Therefore, just some people who have a lucrative income can afford it or a great part of the public purse is allocated to scientific researches. However, this research may disturb the life of animals in these areas. On the other hand, I believe that the drawbacks are outweighed by the positive impacts. Primarily, travellers are likely to have some fresh experiences and unforgettable memories when visiting uncommon areas such as the South pole. Since tourist attractions around the world have become too familiar, those people tend to look for a remote natural environment in the holidays. Additionally, scientists have chances to obtain in-depth knowledge about natural habitats. By setting food in new lands, they may find some new species which have profound effects on the enhancement of science. In conclusion, it is true that travelling to isolated natural areas has both positive and negative effects. However, I believe that its benefits are more significant.