Humans should colonize Antarctica and not Mars.

A lot of places are spoken of as "inhospitable", when they are nowhere near the assertion. Antartica is a hostile environment for a person, but not a inhospitable desert. Also there will never be a self-sustaining colony because it is just not realistic in any sense. Any colony will have to derive energy, food, and materials from a source other than itself. A self sustaing colony would simply collapse from canibalism and unusable energy, and therefore can not be permanent, generational (well depends how they start I suppose), and self sustained. People in antartica right now live off of the life surrounding them and food brought to them overseas just like every colony on our planet. "It is not a safe place by most earth standards.I would contend it would be the difference between setting up a tent in Alaskan wilderness where there are bears, but also berries, and setting up a tent on the crater edge of a very active volcano, in the middle of a North Korean prison camp, where there's nothing to eat."The backyard is not a safe place to house standards. But actually, that is not that far off. The point is the latter environment is more of a challenge and requires far less dependency on home base. In the no food hostile dessert you have no choice but to be completely independent of home base, you have to set up a green house, solar panels, and extra steps for protection from dangers. In the alaskan wilderness (much like the backyard) your environment is more hostile than your used to, but it already presents itself with food and raw materials that are easier to work with, and is much easier to accomadate for the others because it is so much closer to home."Also, the cost is quite literally, astronomical. Colonizing Antarctica is something we can do, and can afford to do, without government help. Colonizing Mars, at a projected launch cost exceeding the wealth of 5.8 million average Americans per dozen colonists"The colonizing of mars would have a long period of preparation. Government would help because it would be a project of interest to all people. I'm not sure there is any reason to colonize any hostile environment for the luxury of it (that wouldn't have common interest for everyone), not many people want to really live in a hostile environment permanently. Besides, colonizing mars is totally feasible, it just requires more effort, resources, energy, and of course making the colony equipt with independency from earth."is nothing we should seriously consider right now."Who said anything about starting to leave now? It is not an urgency to colonize anywhere, and if colonizing anywhere were to take place it should be out of necessity. "What I am highlighting is that Mars colonization is not just uneconomical, but unaffordable and unsustainable, whearas Antarctica is affordable, and concievably sustainable." A mars colony is totally concievably sustainable, it's just the technology and systems it would take are very sophisticated. I honestly think whether it being economical (affordable) or not is a small factor when it comes to whether serious effort should be focused on it. I feel like I've already explained this though...Antartica:Less space, already has inhabitants.A human colony would probably destroy the ecosystem antartica (it would essentially be another country, countries do not tend to remain frugal with their environment and want extras.)No new skills or technologies are needed to be acquired by the human race. (it is and has been done on small temporary scales for research, could be permanent but there is no need and little desire for it.)Mars:lots of room, no inhabitants.Requires innovation and independency from earth.Long term benefit to human race.