8 ms·
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 l
by mft_ 2y ago
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.
- usrbinbash 2y agoThere is also no compelling reason to build a manned base on the Moon, or try to build a city on Mars.
- ryandrake 2y agoThat'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.
- mft_ 2y agoYou wrote "We don't even have the capability to permanently inhabit Antarctica" - this is what I was disagreeing with.