Not sure if that's a good argument. There are lots of places more hospitable and less remote than Antarctica that aren't inhabited either - the reasons why a large number of people would inhabit an area or not are complex.
We have the technology as a species to be able to inhabit Antarctica; there's just no compelling reason to do so at present, so we don't.
That's my point, it takes more than technology to inhabit a place. We might barely have the technology to live in Antarctica (or the middle of the Sahara desert), but it's still not economically feasible, there are no resources there that we need, and there's no social/societal need to be there. Even if we had the technology to safely get to Mars and viably live there (like aliens arrived and handed the technology to us), there's no point to doing it.
You wrote "We don't even have the capability to permanently inhabit Antarctica" - this is what I was disagreeing with.
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis
by usrbinbash on Monday May 20, 2024 @12:14PM
(#40417050)
There is also no compelling reason to build a manned base on the Moon, or try to build a city on Mars.
It may just be a misunderstanding on my part but aren’t there treaties that make anything bigger than science outposts impractical in Antarctica?
There's a similar treaty that precludes human settlement on Mars (for planetary protection reasons).
We definitely have the capability to permanently inhabit Antarctica, except there's nobody who's both willing and permitted to do it. This is also the main problem with Moon/Mars colonies; it could be done but who will pay for it? It's not an economically sound proposal.
The Argentinians claim they have a right to (part of) Antarctica and have made some attempts to create settlements there, not very successfully.
Build a city of 100K on the northern-most habitable tip of Antarctica and have it (physically, socially, and economically) last 10 years, and I'll be convinced that we are ready to at least attempt Mars.