Are these efforts scientifically-driven or necessity-driven?
Are we taking it as a given that humanity will not last here on earth, thus we NEED to find other habitable planets?
Is it because it’s already too late here?
Is it because humanity has embedded into itself, a socio-economic pattern that is completely unsustainable and we are fundamentally unable to reach consensus on how to pull ourselves out of the nosedive?
I'm a human and I'm part of humanity, but I'm under no obligation to take orders from it, or operate with it as part of a forced consensus. What you seem to be arguing for is a complete tyranny of human creativity and experimentation to be lorded over by economists and lawyers.
We're doing it because it's cool and we might learn something. If that's not good enough, then I'm not sure what type of world you'd actually like to live in.
What's with everyone feeling a need to shoehorn every possible issue into an either this or that frame? The world is not made of binary yes/no questions - it feels like it says something about the limitations of the person asking the question.
Both. It is scientifically driven, but scientific exploration itself is a necessity.
Not necessarily because we will all die if we don't do it (though there is a bit of that), but because curiosity is what makes us human. It is as necessary as heroin is for an addict, except that unlike heroin, it is an addiction that lead us to great things. If we stopped doing that, I wouldn't even want to call the resulting species "human".
Are we taking it as a given that humanity will not last here on earth, thus we NEED to find other habitable planets?
Is it because it’s already too late here?
Is it because humanity has embedded into itself, a socio-economic pattern that is completely unsustainable and we are fundamentally unable to reach consensus on how to pull ourselves out of the nosedive?