Some people think that both scientists and tourists could go to some remote places such as the South Pole for different purposes. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

These days, travelling has developed rapidly, the more demands for travel the more places needed to be explored. Indeed, in recent years, it has been increasingly common to see both scientists and tourists are able to visit remote plac. From my perspective, I totally agree with this and this essay will discuss why this idea is approved. To begin with, the first reason supporting this opinion is people are getting bored with former destinations. Travellers are accustomed to visit worldwide and renowned sites so they desire numerous novel places which bring a brand new feelings, emotions. Some things that have not been discovered always generate ample infections such as exciting, fascinating, irresistible, . . . . Secondly, not only scientists but also individuals have chance fondness of geographical knowledge so having an opportunity to call on destinations will broaden their horizons, take more research about dis ubiquitous areas, their traditions, languages, . . . have a ch. Furthermore, remote places seem to be lucrative with the locals and the authorities can create jobs, have some integrations with other countries, thereby enhancing the economy, trading, medical, education to name but a few, resulting in a multiculturalism all over the world. Opponents of my idea may say that undiscovered things may jeopardize commuters. Their idea has some merit on the surface, but I think that this problem can be tackled by some restrictions. The authorities have to promulgate regulations, travellers also need to sign some mental and physical contract and have full responsibility to ensure government do not take that In conclusion, having a chance to visit remote places is acceptable and this creates lots of benefits for the public but needs to be taken seriously for the sake.