What is the problem with space tourism? – nothing as far as I can see. Or is this just some bash the rich thing.

Advance for better of for worse? Really? Every step forward solves another problem. You’d rather Ferdinand and Isabella hadn’t funded Columbus? Or the US govt hadn’t funded Lewis and Clarke. “No thanks we’re quite happy living here on the east coast we’re not interested what is over the horizon to the east.”
We will always want to see over the next horizon it is who we are.

Why must our species advance?
You state that there is still poverty, pollution, inequality here on Earth and you are right, there is. But it is decreasing. Why? One word, knowledge. All are dropping at an exponential rate due to exponential increase in information technologies and their related fields.
Should our advances be asymmetrical? And who gets to deicide?
Go and visit the National Air and Space Museum (you know, part of the Smithsonian) and see the small children eyes open wide with wonder looking up at Apollo 11 and Spaceship One. Amongst them will be a few who are inspired, the next generation’s Goddard, von Braun or Rutan.
If it is now Smithsonian’s doctrine to no longer inspire our youth with aerospace engineering then it might be a good idea to close the National Air and Space Museum first – for good.

The Chinese don’t care what you think or do and so they will go anyway.
If you want your country to be side-lined like mine then this sort of thinking is the way forward. Fortunately you are in the minority.
Being British I have come to accept this sort of anti-patriotic, leftist-liberal claptrap from European institutions safe in the knowledge that the US is still a forward thinking country. Was I wrong?

Did the first humans need to leave Sub-Saharan Africa? They hadn’t solved all their problems, and were making a mess of the area they lived in.

Did the Norse/European explorers need to try and find expanded territory or a trade route to the Indies? They hadn’t solved all their problems, and were making a mess of the area they lived in.

Do we need to take vacations and eventually move into space? We haven’t solved all our problems, and we’re making a mess of the area we live in.

To me, all three are the same question, and while there is debate about the ‘goodness’ of the actions taken, I’m glad the first two choices were made the way they were. Assuming expansion happens, it will be messy, because we’re human, but in general we’ve learned from the past and will do it better than in the past.

However, I would never want to be part of a human experiment in which I and many others are placed on a cold and sterile generation ship and set on a blind course into space in the hopes that our great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren MIGHT set foot on a new and inhabitable planet, at which point they would go to war with and slaughter – if they were to succeed – the natives of that planet. Genocide has always coincided with human expansion across oceans and continents, so why not space?

Space travel for the masses is certainly in our future, and earth’s problems will remain with or without it. However, we can and should make conscious, ethical decisions regarding our other-worldly destinations.

To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm, just that we can doesn’t necessarily mean that we should.

I’ll be on an airplane myself, soon, which will put me halfway to space–but I always will want to come back to Earth.

I also resent the often invoked “but people are starving in Africa ” excuse . Do you realize that when the Wright Brothers took flight the world of 1903 was filled with far more injustice and suffering than today? Even now, many people cannot afford to ride on a plane, yet would one argue that weshould have halted development of flying machines until we “sorted out our problems here on the ground?” If we try to solve all suffering and starvation in the world before attempting space travel, the sun will blow up
first. There will always be problems in the world. We can always do our best to make it better but honestly, how will taking money away from science and technology help exactly? Will cancelling space tourism flights result in boxes of hamburgers landing at the feet of the wretched? Why does space travel have to equate to abandoning earth? Did Europe become abandoned after the colonization of the New World? Quite frankly, I’d be more concerned with the money we spend on nuclear bombs and oil wars.

One final thing regarding the “need” factor: We need the furniture in our homes? Do we need the computers we are writing on the page with? (That would be pure luxury in many parts of the world) Do we need cars any more advanced than a Model T? Do we need to treat ourselves to expensive food and vacations? I staunchly believe in protecting the environment, and I believe in helping those who are disadvantaged, but lookkng at space exploration to pay the bill is barking up the wrong tree. Placing arbitrary restrictions on our technological progress is utterly horrifying.

Amazing how much fear is out there. Careful we might sail of the edge of the world.