The reason nations were willing to sign a treaty agreeing not to colonize the antarctic is that none of them wanted to do it anyway.

Prior to the treaty, humans had already colonized every other continent, and had the means to travel to Antarctica for _thousands_ of years.

If colonizing Antarctica was in any way worthwhile, someone would have done it 100s (or 1000s, or 10,000s) of years ago.

The reason countries sign such treaties is that they don't want to spend money in a race to colonize the place (and a war to decide who owns it) that has no obvious economic return.

>If colonizing Antarctica was in any way worthwhile, someone would have done it 100s (or 1000s, or 10,000s) of years ago.

except technology has advanced since then.

And the global warming directly cuts costs regardless of technology level.

We've had the means and ability to colonize it since the end of WW2. Chile and Argentina have civilian towns there, since the 50s&60s. Very teeny tiny towns, but they exist.

As I understand it colonization in this context means self sufficiency. Are they without delivery of food and other essentials by ship and plane? Could they grow their food there in greenhouses?

Maybe that's why everyone signed the treaty in the first place. They didn't have the tech but now that they do, it's worth giving it another shot.