Please help me to correct my WRITING TASK 2

It is now 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?

As technology has developed, people can now travel to remote natural areas. While
there are some advantages of this trend, 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. Going to other cities or countries has
been too common for most people, so 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 there are great drawbacks of this development. 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 wild animals. Additionally, 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, and this is a negative development.