> Some may argue that such endeavors push technological boundaries, inspire global scientific collaboration, and prepare humanity for existential threats.
It is widely known, not “some may argue”.
> However, considering the vast resources assigned for a mission with no direct immediate benefits to Earth's current problems, one could argue that our focus should be redirected towards addressing environmental crises, poverty, and global health challenges on Earth first
While I appreciate your engagement with the topic, I must point out that the notion that we can 'tackle both' is a dangerously simplistic perspective. The resources—both financial and intellectual—that are poured into space exploration are not infinite and come at the expense of urgent, life-saving initiatives here on Earth. To say it's 'widely known' only underscores the normalization of this skewed prioritization. We're not living in a utopia where all problems can be solved simultaneously; we're in a world where choices have consequences. The urgency of our Earth-bound crises doesn't afford us the luxury of romanticizing space exploration as if it's without trade-offs.
If you're looking for wasteful effort to direct elsewhere, I suggest reducing the money spent on social media, advertising, sport, movies and so on before space exploration.
It is almost like some fields try to drive off as many people as possible from lack of opportunity, to having extreme requirements and being driven by politics.
It is widely known, not “some may argue”.
> However, considering the vast resources assigned for a mission with no direct immediate benefits to Earth's current problems, one could argue that our focus should be redirected towards addressing environmental crises, poverty, and global health challenges on Earth first
What makes you think we can’t tackle both?