Not a teacher only a native.
While I understand your argument, the first paragraph looks confusing to me, I have read the text and have come up with an alternative version. Please not I'm not a teacher and this is only a suggestion.
Nowadays, we can distinguish two different social groups from each other by their responce to the the question, 'International travel is becoming easier, faster and cheaper for many people - is this good?' When we study this topic, we find a number of disagreements between the two factions.
On the one hand, there are those who claim that international travel and the attraction of foreign visitors is of vital imporance. This is because to a lot of places, tourism is the most sustainable source of income. We also have to consider that in some cases, tourism is the fundamental economic basis of many locations.
On the other hand, there is a group of people that says international travel is one of the worst 'diseases' a location has to face. An example is Lord Varemont D'Vaill, who says, 'It is the foreigners who polluted our terrifc and unspoilt white-sanded beaches damaging our whole environment. It will take, at least, one million years for the ecosystem to recover naturally from the mess caused by the unconsiderate stranges.'All in all, despite the fact that it is sometimes the sole economic prop in some societies, tourism can be destructive to a community without the necessary checks. Tourism is like sugar, it is an essential nutrient, however in excessive quantities it is determental to our health.
Hope this helps, I left out the reference to the Baobab as I didn't quite understand it and thought one metaphor was enough. If you have any questions please ask and I will try and clear things up.
Student or Learner