Scientists and tourists 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. However, whether the trend will have negative influence on the local environments remains a controversial issue. I agree with the view that if they can abide by certain rules during their stay, the advantages should outweigh the disadvantages.
Firstly, it is obvious that for scientists, going to less known natural environments can make a difference in their researches. This is because these places have distinct 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.
Moreover, for tourists, top advantage is that they get to see distinctive scenery which can not be compared to other places they have been to. This could be once-in-a-life-time experience as not many people can afford or get the chance to experience an extraordinary side of nature, such as the South Pole which can not be duplicated in the other parts of the Earth.
That is not to say that there is no drawbacks of the practise. If these activities are not deliberately planned out, local scenery spots can be affected when perilous experiments are done in places where the eco-system is fragile to human activities, or at least make endless noise, leave trash everywhere. Consequently the loss will be immense.
In sum, visiting remote natural places is definitely beneficial to both scientists and visitors; meanwhile, these new comers need to restrict their behaviours. Only by doing so will the pros outweigh the cons.