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?

These days, travelling around the world is easier than in the past. It allows people to go to more far and natural areas.

However

, I strongly believe that it is a negative development for several reasons.

Travel

to remote places has some benefits.

First

of all, it might improve scientific advancement.

This

is important for scientists to collect, research and experiment in a real situation. These results can develop mankind knowledge, especially in biology and geology areas. A good example is the South Pole station which consists of a number of researchers from different countries. Many countries concern about the effects of global warming on the South Pole.

Therefore

, these scientists are crucial people who provide real-time information and prevent other negative consequences.

On the other hand

, it has a number of drawbacks.

Firstly

, it might not be safe for tourists.

This

is because there are many places in the world that never have been discovered or explored.

As a result

, unprecedented disasters might harm people during their

travel

. Many studies show around 40 per cent of tourists who

travel

to the South Pole got accidents during their sightseeing.

Furthermore

, tourists might

also

harm local faunas. Travelling to natural places disrupts not only animals but

also

their habitats. It destroys the ecosystem and can leads to animal extinction in the future.

For example

, it is widely acknowledged that various species are at the risk. One of the main reasons is human activities including demolishing their environment. In conclusion,

although

remote natural

travel

has some advantages, it has many negative effects as it might be risky for both humans and animals. Personally, I totally claim that it is a negative improvement for our ecosystem.