Hello, could you please check this text, thank you in advance!

It is thought by some people that tourism can adversely affect regional culture and should not be permitted in some regions in order to protect the unique lifestyle of indigenous people. Their opponents argue that this would not be a reasonable solution and transformation of their culture is unavoidable. There are arguments on the both sides, which we will discuss here.

Those who support banning tourism in order to preserve regional culture point to the transformation of lifestyle of the locals. The massive influx of tourists can force the indigenous to question their way of living, traditions, often choosing in favour of the foreign ones. This can endanger a unique culture, which may not handle competition and might be changed irrevocably.

On the other hand, the opponents believe that the main drivers of cultural changes are global trade, raising standards of living in developing countries. Many people abandon their traditional way of living, leaving their tribes, changing food, clothing preferences when getting involved in [into]  global business one way or another. They are required to comply with the rules and customs of the globalized world and place for their traditions is getting reduced to the privacy of their own [home] homes.

I tend to think that even without tourism we are observing the sad trend where cultures of different nations are getting less distinct and many of them [has] have already been swept away by cultural unification. Therefore, I believe the attempts to limit the interaction between tourists and ??? to be quite futile.

Overall, the main danger to a small culture is not tourism itself, which is just one of many fields of business, but globalization. Therefore, it does not make any sense to ban tourism anywhere.