Your argument is based in a partially wrong premise, which is that colonization of space is being proposed as a way to obtain resources for Earth. That is incorrect.
The main rationale for colonizing space is not economic, at least not in its entirety. The rationale is to establish and expand human presence *outside* the boundaries of Earth, to create independent branches of human civilization that would, should something terrible happen here on Earth, continue our species and our culture. Besides this, it is generally believed in the space community that colonizing space will stimulate growth of the kind of advancement we desire - in other words, money spent on colonizing space will mostly end up boosting innovation, which in turn will improve living standards of people on Earth.
Eventually, when our presence in space is solid enough, we might think about bringing some resources back to Earth to alleviate the environmental problems we have, but this isn't something that will become apparent soon enough to be counted on.
---
People who say "colonizing Antarctica/the sea-floor/the underground is easier and cheaper than colonizing space" are missing the point. Earth is limited. Space is unlimited. Once we learn how to live outside Earth, we have the whole Universe at our disposal, with its infinite opportunities. That's something that nothing here on Earth can give us.
And personally, I think it's not such an outrageous proposition to leave at least *one* continent here on Earth unspoiled by humans. Just one, is that so much to ask?
That's a valid point, but I don't think governments and people in general are thinking that far ahead. Lots of people seem to believe that infinite continuous growth with finite resources is possible without any consequence, I think space colonization if it happens will have to be driven by resource scarcity. It's hard to sell to the public "Hey lets set up a Mars outpost so over the course of 100 years we can establish human settlement in order to spread humanity as a fail-safe to a possible extinction event." Space programs are underfunded as it is.
Much easier to say "Asteroids have diamonds and gold! Infinite hydrocarbons on Titan! Lets mine that!"
As for Antarctica, meh no one lives there. It's like leaving a field fallow, kind of a waste might as well use it if we have to. We'll probaby start with Greenland, Canadian and Russian Arctic first though since those are melting. Greenland is chock full of all kinds of minerals including rare earth.