It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages? hay nhất giúp bạn có thêm tài liệu tham khảo để viết bài luận bằng Tiếng Anh hay hơn.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole

Đề bài: It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this development outweigh the disadvantages?

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 1

Expeditions to distant isolated destinations have been on the rise recently. While this can potentially benefit wildlife conservation programmes, I firmly contend that the development is disadvantageous overall considering the risks to the environment.

On the one hand, both scientific and touristic expeditions can help develop conservation programmes. Indeed, on-site scientific research conducted at Antarctica has successfully illuminated the mating habits of many nearly extinct animal species such as the emperor penguins thanks to close observation of these species, driving initiatives to boost their fertility rate two-fold. Meanwhile, tourists who visit remote destinations might learn about the damages of climate change, thus becoming intrinsically motivated to protect Earth’s fragile ecosystems from further degradation. For example, a campaign to preserve Himalayan bald eagles was initiated by two Swedish explorers on an expedition after they eye-witnessed eagle chicks dying of starvation on a far-flung mountain peak.

On the other hand, I believe the threat of pollution these activities pose must be highlighted. One obvious danger is oil spills from the cruise ships and other forms of transportation traveling to the remote observation sites. In 2007, a cruise boat heading to the South Pole struck an iceberg and sank to the ocean floor, causing a diesel fuel spill that covered 25 square kilometers. Despite enormous efforts from the international community, the disaster claimed the lives of thousands of sea creatures including many rare marine birds in less than two weeks. It also resulted in permanent damage to the Antarctic fauna, algae and plankton, which are the foundation of the local food chain, disturbing the ecological balance across the entire continent and nearby waters.

In summary, although scientific research and intrepid tourism in remote areas might partly contribute to conservation breeding efforts, I am of the opinion that they pose more pressing existential threats to the environment and natural habitats. Therefore, a complete travel ban should be imposed by the United Nations to preserve the ecological and biodiversity of these unique environments.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 2

As the result of increasingly sophisticated transportation, many scientists and tourists can traverse across the world to exotic distant lands. This essay would attempt to make the case that while this enablement presents some merits, they are ultimately overshadowed by the demerits.

Visits to isolated regions such as polar areas can facilitate the knowledge expansion regarding the Earth’s ecological system. In these visits, scientists and nature lovers can explore firsthand the secluded landscape and wildlife, which likely helps deepen their understanding of and instill a sense of appreciation for the diversity of our home planet. Scientists go about this by setting up research stations in the area, which allows research work to take place, and consequently leading to a more environmentally informed public. For instance, research expeditions made to the South Pole in the last several decades have given some insight into the exotic wildlife residing in the area. Another benefit is that travelling to previously inaccessible destinations can offer more diversity for tourists, especially thrill seekers or adventure lovers. These travelers can enjoy a relatively exclusive and likely once-in-a-lifetime experience, which not many can claim to have since such traveling is still not for the masses.

The above-mentioned benefits, however, are likely dwarfed by the drawbacks from my perspective. Due to the long-distance nature of the trips to remote areas, the amount of carbon emission released to the environment is inevitably enormous. What’s more, as the means of transportation for long-distance travel is often ships, oil spillage could occur, and in fact they have on many occasions in the South Pole. These accidents may take many years, or even decades, to be reversed. The appearance of tourists can also disturb the wildlife in these once human-free areas, especially with the lack of oversight in these sparsely populated areas. The safety of tourists themselves also poses valid concerns. If accidents do happen along the excursion, it would take lots of time for rescue teams to reach the victims, which puts travelers’ lives at stake.

In conclusion, although the possibility to travel to remote destinations can broaden our knowledge and provide thrilling experiences, these benefits are by no means a worthy trade-off for the negative impacts on the environment and travelers safety risks.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 3

With the aid of transportation technologies, it is now possible to reach even the most distant regions in the world. However, I would contend that the merits of this development are outweighed by its drawbacks.

On the one hand, the ability to travel anywhere in the world offers considerable benefits. First of all, the discovery of new areas allows everyone to gain a better understanding of the earth and new species. This newfound knowledge can act as a precursor to / clinical breakthroughs or provide scientists with valuable insights to more effectively combat environmental issues such as climate change. Access to previously unreachable scenic beauty also suggests tourism opportunities, as travel enthusiasts are always on the lookout for new exotic getaways.

However, I believe the positive aspects of this trend are eclipsed by more immediate threats to life in this remote natural world. More often than not, as major corporations set foot on and exploit tourism in these areas, the construction of tourism facilities drives out the indigenous people living there. Hotels and recreational facilities emerged at the expense of the locals' accommodation. These people are coerced into / assimilation, which, as history has indicated, results in loss of civilizations and cultures. The presence of foreign visitors in these places also poses certain threats to the natural environment, namely water contamination, land degradation and natural resource depletion.

In conclusion, as exciting as the thought of traveling to remote natural areas may sound, I believe they are better off left untouched.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 4

As technology has developed, people can now travel to remote natural areas. While this trend is beneficial to some extent, I would argue that its disadvantages are more significant.

On the one hand, visiting isolated natural places has some benefits. Firstly, this is a newer and more interesting type of travelling. Since going to other cities or countries has been too common for most people, it might be more exciting for them to explore new places such as the South Pole or the Amazon rainforest. This gives them valuable experiences and unforgettable memories. Secondly, when visiting remote areas, people, especially scientists, might acquire more knowledge about the natural habitat. For example, when coming to the North Pole, scientists can learn about the life of polar bears which live far away from humans.

On the other hand, I believe this development has far more drawbacks. The first one is that travelling to remote natural areas can be risky if the travellers are not sufficiently prepared. For instance, the temperature at the South Pole is usually very low, which adversely affects people’s health. Travelling to forests can also be dangerous as people have to face the risk of being attacked by animals. Also, since visiting isolated places often requires a large amount of investment in researching and ensuring the safety of travellers, the costs of travelling tend to be high. Therefore, it seems like only scientists and rich people can afford this activity, so this development is likely to benefit only a small group of individuals.

In conclusion, I believe the disadvantages of people being able to travel to remote areas outweigh its advantages.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 5

It is true that humans can now set foot in wild regions far away from civilisation. While I accept that this development can have certain benefits for the human race, I believe that it is likely to have a harmful impact on nature.

On the one hand, undertaking expeditions to the wilderness can be valuable in terms of both science and recreation. There are a considerable number of undiscovered secrets that can be tremendously useful for researchers to conduct their studies. For instance, environmental scientists can analyse the data about the thickness of ice layers over millions of years in both hemispheres to predict the possible changes in global temperatures. Such findings are crucial for the governments to develop appropriate plans to alleviate global warming. Furthermore, the untouched beauty of these areas is usually appealing to travellers, providing people with an attractive option of holiday destination or excursion.

However, I would argue that these positive aspects are outweighed by the drawbacks. When people are given full and easy access to the distant and unpopulated areas, there are likely to be more moving there to reside or start their business. It has been shown that substantial damage has been done to nature such as massive deforestation or water contamination due to humans’ lack of environmental awareness. If there is inadequate protection of the environment from this type of action, wild regions in the world will no longer exist, unspeakably affecting not only the overall ecology but also the lives of other people.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the potential dangers of travelling to wild environments are more significant than the possible benefits for the mentioned reasons.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 6

Thanks to recent technological advances, travel to remote destinations such as the South Pole is now feasible. Personally, I think this trend is advantageous and disadvantageous in equal measure.

The growth of tourism in distant areas is beneficial in several aspects. One of the most significant benefits is that visitors are able to explore the pristine conditions of these regions, which is virtually impossible to find elsewhere. In these deserted areas almost untouched by humans, nature thrives. In Antarctica, for instance, tourists will be able to enjoy the sights of towering glaciers and crystal clear waters, as well as observing penguin colonies and schools of whales in their natural habitats. Another group to benefit from travels to the Antarctic is scientists. By studying the changes made to the environment and species there, they might be able to observe the impacts of global warming and thus devise ways to conserve the continent.

On the other hand, these trips can cause damage to these environments as well. The first drawback to mention is the risk of pollution. If any accidents occur to the ships touring the Antarctic, it might result in oil spills and debris that could threaten the delicate ecosystems. There is also the risk of invasive life forms. Visitors could unknowingly carry vegetation or even insects from outside into the area, causing disruption to the ecological balance there. Additionally, the growth of tourism could disturb wildlife. They may leave their habitats to avoid tourists, which would in turn affect their breeding and the balance of the ecosystems.

All things considered, trips to distant destinations could bring about both positive and negative impacts to the regions. However, I believe that in view of preserving the natural conditions there, such trips should be limited to a small number of individuals.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 7

Travelling to remote locations of Earth has evolved as a major topic of concern in recent decades. With advanced technology, missions to these places are no longer impossible for both scientists and tourists. While promoting exploration to such areas has its advantages, I believe the disadvantages are far more significant.

One the one hand, the idea of bringing more people to remote locations is well received by many advocates for a number of reasons. First, some people may regard expedition voyages to untouched areas as exquisite adventures. As the tourism industry expands to these potential destinations, new jobs can be created, and economic benefits can be derived. Furthermore, with the aid of modern means of transport, geologists may now approach the previously inaccessible sites, some of which can be fossil fuel deposits. This is increasingly significant to humankind, as the majority of the current fossil fuel sources have been overexploited and there can be a global energy scarcity in the near future.

On the other hand, substantial disadvantages are apparent because the burgeoning of tourism and geological research may heavily disturb the flora and fauna of the remotely located places. This is due to the unlikeliness that tourist ships bring waste back to the departure point, and that there is no waste treatment plant in untouched places, such as the South Pole. In addition, the work of geologists involves drilling into ice sheets hundreds of metres thick to search for oil and gas. These activities, along with the cumulative tourist waste, may consequently have a disastrous effect on the natural habitats, threatening the lives of millions of animal and plant species.

In conclusion, the drawbacks of the practice of travelling to secluded places such as the disturbance to the local flora and fauna are insurmountable, far outweighing the aforementioned benefits.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 8

Nowadays, owing to the development of technology, a number of humans are reaching remote places, including the South pole, which our ancestors had yearned to reach. Although some people believe this brings disadvantages, I believe this development entails more merits than drawbacks.

On the one hand, the first drawback is that travelling to distant natural environments destroys the previous biodiversity. With the advance in tourism, incoming visitors can alter the existing nature of animals and plants. Furthermore, travel plans always have a considerable possibility of encountering disasters. Destinations are the places that have not been investigated enough due to severe natural conditions, which may result in large-scale incidents. For example, at the South pole, a great number of explorers disappeared because of unexpected weather or terrain.

On the other hand, I argue that there are more advantages than drawbacks. First of all, expeditions can broaden the potential for future research since there is no data on such places for the investigations of new findings on biodiversity and historical routes. For instance, the investigations on the volume of ice at the South Pole revealed that the pace of ice decline was a serious issue. The research result became a wake-up call to the international community. In addition, commercialising travel increases business opportunities. This inspires the local economy and gives financial security for preservation.

In conclusion, in my opinion, though travels to unreclaimed lands have hazardous effects on the environment and safety, this situation gives positive consequences through the progress in research and enlarging business opportunities.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 9

The ability to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole, presents both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it allows scientists and tourists to gain first-hand experience of some of the most fascinating and untouched natural landscapes on the planet. On the other hand, such travel can have negative impacts on the environment and the delicate ecosystems that exist in these areas.

One advantage of travelling to remote natural environments is the opportunity it provides for scientific research. Scientists can study flora and fauna of these regions, conduct experiments, and make observations that would not be possible in other settings. This can lead to important discoveries and a better understanding of the natural world. Furthermore, tourism can generate revenue for the local communities and promote conservation efforts in these regions.

However, there are also several disadvantages to this development. One of the biggest concerns is the potential damage to the environment caused by increased human activity. Human waste, pollution, and disturbances can all have negative impacts on the delicate ecosystems that exist in these areas. Additionally, the travel itself can contribute to climate change through the release of carbon emissions, further exacerbating the negative effects on the environment.

Moreover, tourism can also disrupt the lives of the indigenous people who live in these regions. Tourists may unwittingly disrespect the cultural traditions of these communities or bring new diseases that could be harmful to the local population. This can lead to social and cultural conflicts that may have long-lasting effects on the local communities.

In conclusion, while the ability to travel to remote natural environments can provide benefits in terms of scientific research and tourism revenue, it also has negative impacts on the environment and the local communities. The advantages and disadvantages of this development should be carefully weighed, and measures should be taken to mitigate the negative effects of increased human activity in these areas.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 10

The ability to travel to remote destinations such as the arctic and various islands contains advantages related to travel and research as well as disadvantages regarding environmental preservation. In my opinion, the pros decisively outweigh the cons.

On the one hand, the tradeoffs of being able to travel to remote areas are environmental. Most remote locations are untouched by the rapid industrialization of the last two centuries and despite the best efforts of local governments there is likely to be some contamination from tourism. A good example of this would be various South Pacific islands. The Philippine archipelago in particular is a popular tourist destination, and this has resulted in increased litter and development of the natural environment for tourist friendly infrastructure such as hotels and restaurants. Similarly, the cultural environment for locals is at risk. Numerous indigenous cultures struggle to maintain their unique heritage as foreigners and modern products pour into previously isolated regions.

On the other hand, the main positives relate to travel for pleasure and research. Locations that are not currently occupied by traditional societies were effectively without purpose. Many of them, ranging from remote islands to terrain with inhospitable weather such as Mt. Everest, now offer attractive experiences for the intrepid traveller. For researchers, the benefits are even more tangible. The best-known example of this was the Galapagos islands where Darwin sailed more than a hundred years ago conducted foundational research for his theory of evolution. Since then, the ability to explore new areas has resulted in thousands of discoveries and advances related to archaeology, medicine, marine life, and the environment.

In conclusion, despite the injurious impacts of tourism, it is my strong belief that the opening up of unexplored regions is a net positive. However, governments must still regulate such travel to mitigate the inherent dangers.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 11

Earth has been acknowledged to possess a wealth of natural riches, scenic beauty, polar ice caps, mountain ranges, hidden terrains, and so on, since time immemorial. Scientists and curious sightseers alike frequently embark on journeys throughout the globe in search of undiscovered natural wonders. This essay will discuss the pros and cons of these investigations and conclude with a reasonable conclusion.

Studying the local population, flora, and fauna, and the impact of climate changes over time is one of the benefits of exploring distant natural ecosystems by researchers and visitors. Scientists are free to conduct studies that may one day shed light on the origins of life, the functioning of the planet's climate, and other fundamental questions. Travelers to the area will be able to soak up the natural magnificence of the area, soothe their minds and bodies, and generally have a great time on vacation. Many tourists, for instance, seek out remote and isolated locations for their vacations so that they can reconnect with nature and their own inner peace.

However, these types of expeditions can cost a lot of money. Travelers in really far locales may put their lives in jeopardy owing to a lack of essential amenities including food, water, medical care, and other necessities. In addition, the impacts of environmental and climatic changes on their lives remain largely unknown. There is a concern that more visitors will visit as a result of these explorations, ruining the area's natural attractiveness and threatening the native species’ habitats.

Summing up, there are good reasons to support any point of view, as we have shown. Despite this, I believe the benefits of exploration outweigh the drawbacks, as it not only leads to significant discoveries but also helps to tame the innate human thirst for excitement and adventure.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 12

These formerly inaccessible regions of nature are now open to tourists because of technological advancements. I think the drawbacks of this tendency outweigh the benefits to a far greater degree.

There are positive aspects to exploring wild, uninhabited areas. To begin, this is a novel and intriguing kind of transportation. Traveling to new urban centers or countries has become routine for many, therefore it may be more exhilarating for them to discover the South Pole or the Amazon rainforest. They get knowledge and memories that will last a lifetime. Second, it's possible that scientists, in particular, can learn more about the natural environment if they travel to more isolated regions. Scientists, for instance, can study polar bears, which live in isolation from people, by traveling to the North Pole.

Nevertheless, I think there are many more negative repercussions of this trend. The first is that if one is adequately trained, traveling to natural locations far from civilization can be safe. The South Pole, for example, has extremely low average temperatures, which can have catastrophic effects on human health. Forest travel is risky because of the possibility of being attacked by wild creatures. Moreover, travel costs tend to be expensive because exploring remote areas typically necessitates a substantial financial commitment to research and assuring the safety of tourists. So only scientists and the affluent can afford this activity, so only a selected few will benefit from this innovation.                                                                                                                                                                      

In conclusion, it is certain that the downsides of individuals being able to visit far-flung locations outweigh the rewards.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 13

Modern times have opened up previously inaccessible natural areas to tourists and environmental scientists. In this essay, I'll make the case that the advantages of this strategy much outweigh any potential downsides. The essay will begin by showing that the main benefits are a reduction in stress and an improvement in the local economy, and it will then go on to show that the primary disadvantage is not the creation of pollution but rather the perception of that as a problem.

The primary motivation for visiting undeveloped wilderness places is the pursuit of serenity. People today are under a lot of stress from their jobs, and as a result, some of them are looking to escape to a peaceful natural environment to refocus and recharge. Moreover, this can aid scientists in locating uncommon plant species that can be used for the study of the prosperity of the community. For instance, according to research published in The Times of India, many conventional medicines are derived from natural herbs that were discovered by scientists in faraway lands decades ago.

Some people think that opening up natural areas to tourists and researchers will ruin them for everyone. The reason for this is that a growing number of visitors would visit these areas in the years to come, posing a threat to the ecological system. Many backpackers to these locations are conscious of the likelihood of environmental damage, so they take measures to minimize their impact. In addition, governments implement rigorous standards to preserve the tranquillity of these areas. 

The idea that exploring natural areas will lead to pollution is erroneous, but the reality that doing so helps to achieve peace and development of that area more than makes up for it.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 14

In recent years, it has been possible for tourists to visit distant regions that were accessible only to scientists and explorers. In fact, the industry is booming with visitor figures rising year after year. While there are certain risks involved, I believe these are outweighed by the benefits.

Travel to remote areas is usually associated with risks regarding environment and tourist safety. Firstly, tourism activities might disturb the fragile environments in these areas. For example, there are incidents in Antarctica when vessels carrying tourists collide with submerged ice, spilling a huge amount of oil into the sea. This can severely interfere with marine life. Land animals are also affected. A recent accident involved a polar bear being shot dead to save a tourist who got too close to the animal. Secondly, keeping tourists safe is another concern because remote areas often have harsh and unpredictable weather conditions. For example, if accidents occur in the Arctic, tourists can be left in sub-zero temperature for hours before rescue arrives.

Nevertheless, the above-mentioned risks are relatively low and thus can be managed; the benefits, on the other hand, are much greater. First, when seaside or mountainous holidays have become too familiar, distant regions offer fresh travel experiences. For example, tourists who travel to the Arctic can see stunning icy landscapes with northern lights and impressive wildlife such as polar bears and penguins. Second, remote-area tourism helps raise environmental awareness. While global warming is not news, the average person seems to be not too concerned with it. Their daily activities are generally not affected, and the impacts of global warming seem non-existent. This attitude might be changed with a trip to the Pole, where they can first-hand observe ice glaciers melt and see wildlife struggle to cope with the changing environment.

In conclusion, it is my view that tourism in distant regions is advantageous, provided that environmental protection and tourist safety are guaranteed.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 15

Scientific expedition and tourism growth to remote natural habitats has resulted in significant public discussion in recent years. While there are some specific benefits, I would argue that this trend does more harm than good.

On the one hand, increased accessibility to remote wilderness could be advantageous to scientific studies and environmental preservation. Firstly, scientific research in remote areas, including Antarctica, relatively remaining untouched, might enrich human understanding of global environmental issues, including climate change, ozone depletion, and sea-level rise. Ever-accelerating impacts by human activities since the industrial revolution could be better understood by researching ice glaciers in polar areas, containing a unique record of the world’s past climate which later helps scientists to offer more accurate predictions about the Earth’s future environment. Secondly, ecotourism in remote communities might benefit the environment and the local economy because numerous locals and their communities have been relying on ecotourism as their sustainable source of income and conservation funding.

On the other hand, I would argue that there are more drawbacks to this trend. Firstly, increased contact between humans and wildlife animals could strain the already fragile natural environment. There are some reported cases that humans encountering polar bears have caused unnecessary conflicts of killing these wild animals for the sake of protecting humans. Also, scientists and tourists could cause the danger of introducing non-endemic species ultimately devastating native wilderness. Secondly, large ships carrying visitors and scientific professionals could cause great concern as various incidents of oil or fuel spills over these pristine environments could pose a severe challenge for rescue and evacuation and incident resolution due to its isolated locations from inhabited areas. The unavailability of emergency facilities and a dearth of preparation and readiness among tourists could be easily met with unpredictable dangers on these unfamiliar fronts.

In conclusion, while there are some merits of tourists and scientists exploring remote destinations, I believe that the demerits of this trend eventually outweigh its benefits.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 16

Travelling to isolated places is becoming easier for scientists and tourists. Although this trend is beneficial to some extent, I believe its drawbacks are more significant.

Going on a visit to remote destinations can be advantageous for two reasons. For scientists, field research in remote settings can provide an insight into scientific problems and encourage new ways to investigate the solutions that otherwise would be problematic to achieve in conventional environments. For example, field research in Antarctica would allow scientists to look closely at rising sea levels and therefore find ways to mitigate the detrimental effects of climate change. Regarding tourists, this kind of travelling helps them to have a change of scenery, which can be especially beneficial for adventurous travellers who look for something out of the ordinary. That is, getting off the track can provide trav ellers with a great escape from the hustle and bustle of everyday life while having incredible views and exploring wildlife in unspoiled destinations.

However, the disadvantages of this trend outweigh the advantages. Conducting fieldresearch in remote places is challenging as there are many issues associated with travel hurdles, dangerous weather or animals or even local politics that may not offer conveniences or comfort for scientists. If researchers do not possess good problem-solving skills, their life might be at risk. Besides, tourism is likely to pose threats to these unspoilt places in environmental terms. The presence of so many visitors tends to create an enormous amount of waste or disturb the habitat of native plants and animals. For instance, the highest mountain in the world. Everest, is now strewn with litter that is left by hordes of mountain climbers

In conclusion, although the advantages of contribution to science fields and opportunities to get extraordinary travelling experiences that can be offered by visiting remote places, I strongly believe that the disadvantages of being involved in dangerous situations and disturbing the native environment are greater.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 17

Remote environments with hostile natural conditions, like the South Pole, used to be out of bounds for the general public. However, this is no longer the case in the present day when scientists and tourists can make a casual visit to such places. From my point of view, the benefits that this trend offers can hardly justify the potential catastrophic drawbacks that it poses.

On the one hand, travelling to remote natural environments brings certain advantages. As regards tourism, these natural areas make for exotic traveling destinations that can create great revenues for the industry. As the uncharted elements of these areas whet the curious travellers’ appetite for adventure, they would not mind paying a handsome fee to get this unique experience. This money, in turn, can go into the preservation of the natural features there. In terms of scientific research, expeditions made into isolated areas may yield some useful discoveries about the origins of various creatures, including homo sapiens. These findings can be added to the existing theories of evolution and offer people a new insight into the history of the world.

On the other hand, I am of the conviction that the potential drawbacks are more disastrous when it comes to visiting remote areas. Insufficient preparation and equipment on the part of travelers can expose them to the hazards of extreme weather. For example, the South Pole and North Pole are infamous for their unyielding cold, to which a long exposure can adversely impact the physics of dwellers on these lands and might even result in death in severe cases. On top of that, a flux of travelers to these lands can alter the already existing course of nature. Specifically, the presence of humans, especially in numbers, can often drive native animals off their natural habitats, which can force them into danger from other predators or hostile environments. Consequently, the ecosystem there may suffer greatly.

In conclusion, I believe that the feasibility of travelling to remote areas can bring more harm than good. It is both the travelers and the natural habitats and wildlife that will bear the consequences.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 18

Explorers, along with scientists, have long traveled to previously inaccessible locations in the interests of exploration and understanding our world better. Now tourists are also going on excursions there for purely personal reasons with potentially serious effects such as bringing in pollutants and disturbing local wildlife. The benefits of such activities are therefore highly contentious.

For thousands of years, mankind has sought to reach every part of this world in the interest of discovering it all and learning as much as possible. This has opened up these remote areas to human encroachment at a level never experienced before; for example, after the Southern Pacific Ocean was mapped, whalers and seal hunters were sent there in droves to bring back whale oil seal skins for burgeoning European markets. This brought riches to many merchants and an expansion of trade networks which definitely increased the world economy. However, there were no controls on the killing, so some species were hunted to near or complete extinction, affecting the natural ecosystem greatly.

As the world economy has grown, more people have taken to traveling to remote places, even back in the early 1980’s tourists could take a commercial flight over Antarctica from New Zealand, until a plane crashed into a mountain in bad polar weather. While this is a disaster for the people killed, their families and the tourism industry, it also severely impacted a pristine environment, with debris scattered over a large area. This is not an isolated incident either as thousands of tourist boats go to unexplored areas such as Northern Alaska every year, all impacting fragile environments, including wildlife such as Polar Bears.

Overall, the only advantage I can see is scientific research, which can bring incalculable benefits whereas the negatives are manifold, from pollution, including from accidents, to deliberate hunting of endangered species. Personally, I believe these areas should only be open to carefully vetted scientific research to ensure future generations still have this as part of their world.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 19

Recent advancements in technology have enabled humans to travel to distant places in nature. This is scientifically beneficial to all societies, yet concurrent tourism activities can contaminate the pristine conditions of these places and negate the scientific benefits.

Being able to travel to these places is an unprecedented opportunity for scientific development and application, especially in the field of climatology. Scientists can now travel to pristine locations to collect live specimens, fossils and observe the local natural phenomena that may not have been documented before. For example, studying the layers of the ice cores from the North and South Poles has helped scientists to reconstruct the climatic trends and patterns which date back to millions of years. These findings can add valuable insights and revolutionise the way humans understand our environment in the past and the present. Recently, such findings have been extremely useful in the ongoing discussions on how to solve global issues such as global warming.

Despite unique opportunities it offers to the scientific community, traveling to unspoiled natural destinations could inflict irreparable damage on them when tourism is involved, thereby doing more harm than good. Littering and vandalism are two of some of the most pressing problems caused by tourism. For example, numerous mountain peaks which previously could only be reached by serious mountaineers have reportedly been polluted and defaced after the installation of aerial tramways which grant unrestricted access to all visitors. The aforementioned remote environments could suffer the same fate when waves of tourists frequently land there. Furthermore, the contamination brought to these locations by touristic activities could also interfere with the quality and accuracy of the scientific research carried out there.  

In conclusion, exploiting remote natural locations for tourism could nullify the scientific values they offer and even cause permanent damage to these places. Only selected organizations and individuals who follow strict rules and regulations to preserve these places should be allowed to access.

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole - mẫu 20

Since ancient times, planet earth has been known to host a multitude of natural resources, scenic beauty, polar ice caps, mountain ranges, hidden terrains and so on. Often Scientists and tourists travel all over the earth to explore hidden natural place, admire their beauty or conduct scientific research over its ecosystem. This essay will analyse the merits and demerits associated with these explorations before drawing a logical conclusion.

One of the benefits of exploring distant natural ecosystems by scientists and sightseers is to study the local inhabitants, flora and fauna and impact of climatic changes in that region over time. Scientists can perform their research work which can potentially lead to some important discoveries about the evolution of life on earth, climatic behaviour and so on. Analysis of snow caps in Polar Regions, rivers in Arizona, lakes in Himalaya's and soil in remote forests can help to answer unsolved mysteries. Tourists can enjoy the untouched beauty of that region, relax their souls and enjoy their vacations. For instance, many holidaymakers prefer to choose sites that are not crowded and far away from known places, so that they can enjoy the nature to its full extent and revive their souls.

On the contrary, these explorations often incur huge expenses. People visiting remote places can risk their lives in danger due to unavailability of basic necessities of life like food, water, medicines and so on. Moreover, unknown environmental and climatic changes can have adverse effects on their lives. These explorations might attract more tourists which will destroy its beauty and ecosystem of local in-habitats.

To recapitulate, the aforementioned provides several plausible arguments in favour of both views. However, in my opinion, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages as the exploration not only result in important discoveries, but it also helps kerb the human desire for adventure and thrill.

Xem thêm các bài luận Tiếng Anh hay khác:

• Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given to the protection of wild animals and birds. Do you agree or disagree with this opinion?

• Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists, not local people. Why is this the case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places?

• Nowadays, many families have both parents working. Some working parents believe other family members like grandparents can take care of their children, while others think childcare centers provide the best care. Discuss both views and give your own opinion

• Some people think that famous people can help international aid organizations to draw attention to important problems. Others believe that celebrities can make the problems seem less important. Discuss both views and give your opinion

• Some people think that the increasing use of computers and mobile phones for communication has had a negative effect on young people's reading and writing skills. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Hơn 20.000 câu trắc nghiệm Toán,Văn, Anh lớp 9 có đáp án

---