But you could. The technology exists to put solar panels and modular reactor. The technology exists the make buildings with grow lights. The argument isn't that it is worth it. It certainly isn't. The argument was that the technology exists to do it if we had any good reason to.

The antarctic isn't more self sustaining because no one has ever been motivated enough to make it that way. Just because it hasn't been does mean the technology doesn't exist to do it.

A quick Google says a little over 3000 people for the US. Most of which aren't scientists. Looks like there about 70 permanent stations operated by 29 different countries. So without spending too much time digging there is probably between a couple thousand to over ten thousand people living on the continent at any point in time.

We don't have "difficulty" living in Antarctica... we have been doing it for years. We have also had people on the ISS for a large chunk of the last decade. What do you mean "not even close"?

Edit. In fact there are a lot of small towns in rural areas with lower populations than the antarctic research stations.

There is always a quantified and accepted risk of failure. There literally can not be zero risk of failure. You can mitigate but at some point you have to agree what is good enough.

Not gonna lie this feels like another in a long line of fusion "breakthrough" announcements. We are still a long way off from a Q value that might actually be viable.