It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environment, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages? v.1

The world we live in is unknown to many but due to the advent in technology, it is made possible to travel to remote locations. Several fields like research and tourism may add to its advantageous side. However, as the risk of climate change is involved, I firmly believe that a neutral approach should be followed in order to maintain a good atmosphere for everyone. To begin with, a plethora of cogent reasons prove to beneficial for knowing mankind and nature to a greater extent. Firstly, the forests which were hidden from the eyes of the scientist can now study the different aspects of species. Secondly, places like South pole can be analysed to get better insights about the characteristics of Earth. For instance, a group of researchers from the US, stayed in Antarctica for 6 months to study the causes of depletion of the ozone layer eventually leading to a staggering knowledge. Finally, tourists who have a deep feeling of wanderlust or those who want to have a thrilling experience would be benefited the most. On the other hand, we must not pollute the very land we live in. With an increase in visitors in these regions, our environment would not be in safe grips. Furthermore, a significant amount of people would poison the biosphere which may guide to catastrophic events like weather modification, global warming and many others. To exemplify, in Kedarnath, due to an increased volume of people high pressure was created thus resulting in heavy rainfall and floods. To sum up, I strongly opine in the fact that although there is a dire need for understanding certain areas properly yet it cannot be denied that it should be protected at all cost for the human race to survive so as a whole, only a limited number should be permitted to sustain the beauty of nature.