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?

As developments in technology keep advancing, it is now possible for scientists and visitors to travel to remote areas. While I think there are various advantages of travelling to such places, I believe that its drawbacks are much more significant. On the one hand, human beings are curious animals and most of them always like the idea of being adventurous. Firstly, travelling to isolated natural environments is an interesting and new opportunity for many individuals. Even though travelling to other cities is common for many, it might be more exciting for them to travel to remote areas such as the South Pole and this help individuals to create unforgettable memories and experiences. Secondly, visiting such places allows scientist to acquire more knowledge about nature. For instance, examining icebergs in the South Pole can help us discover many unknown things about our planet. On the other hand, travelling to distant natural areas can be dangerous, especially if the travellers are not adequately prepared. The South Pole has an extremely cold climate and if the travellers are not sufficiently prepared, they can suffer from frost-bites or hypothermia. In addition, doing research in isolated environments can actually cause more harm than good. Animals and the ecosystem may be disrupted by examining them. Finally, visiting remote areas is highly expensive and the necessary gear costs enormous amount of money as well. Therefore, only scientists and wealthy people can afford this kind of travelling, so this development is only benefiting a small group of individuals. In conclusion, it seems to me that the cost, effects and potential dangers of travelling to wild environments are more significant than the possible benefits.