What is the point of spending billions in space exploration programs when there is so much to deal with on earth? Poverty, inequalities, over-consumption, climate change, industrial slavery, nuclear wars prevention... The list is longer but everyone gets the point.

The question sounds very legitimate. Some will answer about expanding humankind's knowledge, or about finding new resources, or developing new technologies that would also be helpful also on earth... Nevertheless, the anti-space race list sounds a little bit more dramatic and could appear like a priority.

So who is right, who is wrong? As often it is not a matter of truth but a matter of choice based on goals and based on observations.

Have you heard about the Fermi paradox? One extrapolation of this concept is about defining the probability of intelligent form of life: terrestrial life and/or extraterrestrial life. If you think it is plausible it means we are not alone so maybe we should anticipate some form of extraterrestrial counterpowers. And if you think we are the only form of intelligent life, it means the probability of our existence was thin. In fact so thin that compared to the possible causes of our eradication we have to do something.

This something should be about increasing the survival probability of mankind. Now let's take a look at instinct species from the last decades and centuries: they all had in common a very narrow geographical presence. They were mostly concentrated in one space/environment and because of changes in it, they disappeared.

So from my point of view, the main argument about justifying the investments in space programs is about humankind being a multi planetary species in order to increase its survival probability rate.

For sure, this statement/opinion is also linked to dependent topics like ethics and speciesism... But this is for another day.

So regarding your point of view, is increasing survival probability of humankind the absolute argument?