tTraveling to remote areas

It is now possible for scientists and tourists to travel to remote natural environments, such as the South Pole, Amazon jungles, or even places deep within the ocean.

When you use "such as" here to list examples, it sounds more natural if you have a list of 2 or more items.

First of all, we should ask ourselves whether traveling to isolated wild areas is beneficial to whomthe question; who benefits from these expeditions?

"Traveling to isolated wild areas" = expedition.

"Whether" doesn't sound right here because "whether" is normally used to make a comparison between two possible situations.
Examples:
I didn't know whether that was polite or not.
I'll go, whether rain or shine.

Modern human beings have caused many irreversible damages to the earth’s ecosystem and I do not believe this case would be an exception.

"Irreversible damages" is technically correct here, but "irreversible damage" sounds more natural.

The first priority of these kinds of societies is producing and selling goods as muchas many goods as possible to earn profits/turn a profit.

Again, your wording is technically correct here, but "selling as many goods as possible" sounds better.

To humans, thisese actions hasve benefits to some extent.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe when you say "this action", you're referring to the actions of producing and selling. Therefore, you should use the words "these actions" here since you're talking about 2 distinct actions, the actions of producing and selling.

On the one hand, adventuring in untouched areas brings some benefits to individuals in terms of both science and recreation.

This phrase is normally said as "On one hand", with the second part being "On the other hand".

Travelers use this opportunity to relieve some stresses and enjoy themselves.

Typically, you just say "stress". "Stresses" also works, but I don't normally hear that.

For instance, someone who wants to travel to the Amazon jungle might find themselves/oneself in danger of being attacked by various poison insects and wild animals.

"Themselves" is technically plural, but it can also be used to refer to "oneself". Either word works, but I would personally use themselves.

The danger of poison insects and wild animals isn't 100% clear here (you could be in danger of eating them or hurting them, for example). Therefore, its better to include "of being attacked by" to make the consequences of going into the jungle more clear.

In conclusion, I guess/suppose that the detrimental consequences of traveling to these distant areas far outweigh the positive ones.

"Suppose" sounds more formal here, and as such, is more suitable for writing like this.

tTraveling to remote areas

First of all, we should ask ourselves whetherto whom traveling to isolated wild areas is beneficial to whom?

Modern human beings have caused manyuch irreversible damages to the earth’s ecosystem and I do not believe this case would be an exception.

The word "damage" in this sentence is quantifiable, but it is not a countable item and so cannot be pluralized.

For instance, someone who wants to travel to the Amazon jungle might find onethemself in danger of various poison insects and wild animals.

"themself" is used because it is a direct object. (https://wikidiff.com/oneself/themself) "themselves" may also be used here (https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/themself-or-themselves)