Yes there is. Self sustaining off-world colonies AND asteroid deflection technologies go hand in hand to help fight extinction -- which should be priority #1 for any truly sentient race.

Clearly asteroids are a very real threat, and I black-hole heartedly agree with the notion that Earth's space agencies are not giving them the level of public concern these threats should have: Humans are currently blind as moles to space. Any statement to the contrary is merely shrouding the issue in the Emperor's New Clothes. Earth's telescopes can study very small parts of space in some detail, but do not have the coverage required to make the dismissive claims that NASA and other agencies do about asteroid impact likelihood -- note that they frequently engage in panic mitigation. Remember that asteroid transit NASA was hyped about, meanwhile another asteroid whipped by completely unexpectedly closer than your moon, too late to do anything about? Remember Chelyabinsk? That one was 20 to 30 times Hiroshima's nuclear bomb, but it didn't strike ground. What kind of wake-up call is it going to take?! You'd probably just get more complacent even if an overly emotional alien commander committed career suicide in the desert to take your leaders the message that Earth was surely doomed without a massive protective space presence -- If such a thing ever occurred, that is.

Seriously, the space agencies are essentially lying by omission to the public by not pointing out the HUGE error bars in their asteroid risk estimates. I mean, Eris, a Dwarf Planet, was only discovered in 2005! Eris is about 27% more massive than Pluto, and passes closer in its elliptical orbit than Pluto -- almost all the way in to Neptune! Eris is essentially why your scientists don't call Pluto a planet anymore. They deemed it better to demote Pluto than admit you couldn't see a whole planet sitting right in your backyard... And NASA expects you to believe their overly optimistic estimates about far smaller and harder to spot civilization ending asteroids? Eventually your governments won't have the luxury of pissing away funding via scaremongering up war-pork and ignoring the actual threats you face, like a bunch of bratty rich kids.

Asteroids are only one threat, and one that we could mitigate relatively easily given advanced notice of their trajectories. However, Coronal mass ejections, Gamma ray bursts, Super Volcanoes, Magnetosphere Instability, etc. are all also severe threats that humanity can't mitigate with telescopes and a game of asteroid billiards alone -- Though fast acting manipulation of the gravitational matrix via strategic placement of asteroids could help with CMEs or gamma bursts too once you had a sufficient armament of even primitive orbiting projectiles. The irregularity in your magnetosphere should be particularly distressing because it is over 500,000 years overdue to falter and rebuild as the poles flip (according to reconstructions of your geo-magnetic strata) -- It could go at any time! Given the current very abnormal mag-field behavior you have no idea if it will spring right back up nice and organized like or leave you vulnerable to cosmic rays and solar flares for a few decades or centuries.

You should be grateful that the vulnerable periods of mag-pole flops halted as soon as humanity began showing some signs of intelligence -- even if this is absolutely only a mere coincidence. Mastery of energy threats will remain far beyond your technological grasp for the foreseeable future, but your species can mitigate such threats of extinction by self sustaining off-world colonization efforts! In addition to getting some of your eggs out of this one basket, the technology to survive without a magnetosphere on the Moon and Mars could be used to save the world here on Earth. In the event of a worst case scenario, humans could then repopulate Earth all by themselves after the dust settles from a mass extinction event. It's nearly unfathomable that anyone could sit comfortably in their gravity well thinking theirs may be the only spark of intelligent life in the universe while considering prioritizing anything above extinction prevention. If ancient myths about post-death paradise can invoke enough apathy that you would risk letting the only known spark of life go out, then yours is not a sentient species. Yes, you have all the space-time in the world, but those days are certainly numbered!

Those averse to human exploration of space now are not self aware and sentient beings. In fact, were I an alien overseer -- and I am most certainly not admitting that I am -- then based the lack of exploration beyond your magnetosphere over the past 40 years I would recommend we cut our losses and take your species off the endangered sentience list. I imagine -- as a purely hypothetical speculation -- that if humanity did owe an advanced alien race one hell of a tab, and showed no indication of ability to repay it for the infinite future, that one of them might risk violation of technological contamination statutes and propagandize the suggestion for you to get your asses to Mars and colonize it as soon as humanly possible -- which would have been about 67 years ago, if you hadn't wasted so much time murdering yourselves. Even if exposing a clear and troubling picture of humanity's place in the universe were an overt violation of some alien version of your fictional prime directive, it's not like one would not seriously need a permanent vacation after only a few decades of witnessing humanity's failure after mind-blowing failure to commit to ANYTHING resembling progress as a space faring race!

Perhaps one would rethink their benefit package at the last second, and bury their contemptuous assessment in a reply to an AC.

It is not only what you want. If you have the required talent, you have a strong moral obligation to become good at using it. Otherwise a technological society collapses.

Typical US ignorance. It is.

While I did my PhD at one of the best technical universities in Europe (and on the planet), I was paid about 60% of an industrial salary. Doing a PhD and not getting paid enough to live off it decently is pure insanity. Of course you have some teaching duties (40% in my case), but you learn a lot there too, like presenting stuff and speaking in front of a group. Invaluable in basically any technical job on advanced level.

The British are not really part of Europe...

In most of Europe, you do not need a car, because they have something called "public transportation" that, unlike in almost all of the US, does not suck. Example: Here the longest distance to the next stop (city area, 350'000 inhabitants) is 200m, and during the day its one Bus/Tram every 7 minutes. A car is completely redundant. Instead use the Bus or Tram ride to read, something you do all the time as a student anyways.

Indeed. And if you chose the right one, you also get solid command of a second language out of that, an invaluable asset if you want to do anything international.

That is a road not many can take without sucking badly (and most that take this road do indeed suck badly, many of them do not know it). High-quality education is what allows you to stand on the shoulders of giants. No amount of talent can replace that. In fact, talent is orthogonal to it. You need both to be good.

I do know a number of people in the CS field that had abbreviated educations (BS only) or educations with the wrong focus point (economics, then they were doing IT security work) and that invested in more (MA, PhD in one case). All say that it was very much worth their while. All also say that they could not even see or only very fuzzily see what they were missing before.

A society where somebody looking to get an education can be reduced to that sucks on a very fundamental level. Doing education right takes everything a person has. Adding economic survival to that is just plain wrong and also plain stupid economically. Maybe one of the reasons the US imports so many H1B workers: The domestic talent seems to find it far to difficult to get a good education. A country the size of the US should not have any shortage of highly talented, skilled and educated people. Yet it has.

Indeed. Everything you learn that you are interested in that is. That is one of the main reason to advise people to learn something they have a passion for. The ones doing things for the money will not get a lot of mileage out of their "learning" as it will not become part of who they are and hence they will never be good at it will not stay long with them. That is also a reason why everybody that finds they cannot find passion for a subject to change the subject.

Sure, at the end of the day you have to find some way to make enough money from what you learned to live off it. But you can either live in hell, doing a job you hate and no amount of money will ever compensate for that (although many people think it does). Or you can do something that you at lest love parts of and that you are good at. That usually does not make you rich, but unless you are really unlucky, it should be enough to live decently off it. Just remember that working is what takes most of your awake-time. Making that time more agreeable is very much worthwhile.