Visiting remote natural environment It is 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? My essay: As the development of technology, people now can go to some isolated natural areas. While this trend is becoming more interesting and beneficial for most people, I think its drawbacks also remained considerable. On the one hand, visiting remote natural places has some benefits. Firstly, it brings us excitement and joy. Since going to most famous cities or countries has been too common and easy for most people, it might drives their curiosity if they can explore new places such as the South Pole or the Sahara desert. By the way, they can also get some valuable experience and unforgettable memories. Secondly, some people, especially scientists, can expand their knowledge about natural habitat through this way of travelling. For instance, if they go to Amazon rainforest, they might discover new plants or creatures that never been found before. On the other hand, I believe undertaking expeditions to the wilderness has far more downsides. The first one is that it can be risky if the travellers are not sufficiently prepared. They might get a cold if the temperature go down immediately or suffer from illness if their healthy is not good enough. Moreover, travelling to forests can be very dangerous as people might be attacked by wild animals or canivourous plants. Also, visiting isolated places often requires a lot of efforts to investigate and research so that the safety of travellers can be ensured, so the costs of travelling tend to be very high. Therefore, It likely to benefit only a small group individuals such as rich people or scientists. In conclusion, I believe the disadvantages of people being able to go to remote areas outweigh its advantages