Scientists and tourists can travel to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Remote natural places have become attractive to scientists and tourists these days. If they can abide by certain rules during their visit, the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages.

For scientists, going to less known natural environments can make a difference in their researches. As these places have district eco-systems which are good resources for scientists to explore and expand their knowledge in different areas. Normally, researchers will collect samples, take pictures and observe the environment in order to achieve certain research goals. With all these activities, the explored areas will reveal important values to human beings. But on the flip side, if these activities are not carefully planned, local or home environments can be affected when dangerous experiments are done in places like the South Pole where the eco-system is fragile to human activities.

For tourists, the top advantage is this could be once-in-a-life-time experience as not many people can afford or get the chance to experience the extraordinary part of the Earth, such as the South Pole, besides, if they can stay in these places for a few days, the time will  allow them to explore deeper and have more discoveries during the trip. Of course, the arrival of tourists is not all blessing to the local environment. These people may make lots of noise, leave trash everywhere, destroy plants for personal collections or even hurt animals. If the damage is serous, there is little chance for the environment to recover. Consequently, the loss will be immense.

Based on the pros and cons mentioned above, I personally think that visiting remote natural places is certainly beneficial to both scientists and visitors. However, considering the possible disadvantages, these people need to restrict their behaviors. In that way, the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages.