I read a great rundown once on /r/space about how Antarctica actually is in many ways less hospitable than Mars, at least in winter. I find that rather amazing.
Perhaps you're thinking of this thread? https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/2xvdow/why_worry_abo...
"(I'd probably prefer equatorial Mars over Antarctica)"
Antarctica has the extremely important benefit of having earth gravity, whereas Mars is 1/3 the gravity of Earth.
Your health would rapidly decline on mars - everything from your bones becoming brittle to your muscle mass wasting to your teeth decaying. Your body would just fall apart.
At least if you get to Antartica you don't need a pressurized suit and an airlock to go outside. It's difficult to imagine a less hospitable world than one without an atmosphere and a magnetic field (well, not talking about Venus-level inhospitable).
Re:Saturn moon 'able to support life'
by Houshalter on Friday April 14, 2017 @01:12PM
(#14115630)
Also the biggest barrier to colonization is transportation. It's much easier to get to Antarctica than it is to Mars. Lots of humans have been to Antarctica. It's unlikely anyone will ever set foot on Mars for the foreseeable future.
Mining wasn't banned until 1991. And as the article outlines, Antarctica is a really, really inhospitable place, to the point that it might be easier to colonize a different planet than to colonize Antarctica (I'd probably prefer equatorial Mars over Antarctica) and even mineral extraction would be very complicated.