Scientists and tourists can travel to remote natural environments such as the South Pole. Do you think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?
利弊相当
These days, many remote areas have become popular with scientists and tourists. I believe that such trips can be valuable, especially as expeditions for learning, but the trips may also cause unexpected problems, so the advantages probably offset the disadvantages.
Scientists have often visited the North and South Poles in an effort to learn more about our environment. With today’s concerns about global warming, it is necessary for them to visit and gather useful information which can be used to predict the future. For example, by researching and studying the polar ice caps, some of which are located at the South Pole, scientists have been able to confirm that the world is getting warmer, as the ice caps have now been melting more than ever. In gathering this information, it is easier for us to better understand global warming and to predict the effect it could have on all of us.
As for tourism, many of these remote areas are not common tourist spots and tourist attractions and accommodation in those places is often minimal. Whether tourists can adapt to the harsh environment and living conditions is a big question. Meanwhile, we should be aware of the harm tourists can do, consciously or unconsciously, to the vulnerable environment, such as littering and hurting wild animals.
If a person is a scientist or a naturalist who is interested in the natural environment, trips to remote natural areas might be valuable and enjoyable. However, the local environment may be under potential threat if scientific research is not carried out properly or if tourists pollute the environment.