No, but the same questions/comparisons apply to near earth orbit as well (what is actually accomplished by maintaining a human settlement there?). Clearly there are benefits, but are they in proportion to the cost and diversion of so many resources?
Another way to frame this problem might be to ask where is the expansionist/explorative boundary where we should stop? Where further action is counterproductive.
A desire to eat surgary/fatty foods to excess helped for a long time, when these things were rare. The same impulse becomes harmful in an environment of prolonged abundance and relative inactivity.
The impulse to explore, to settle, to conquer, has propelled humanity to planetary dominance. Should it apply only to productive areas on the earth? To Antartica and to the ocean floors? To near earth orbit? To the moon, Mars, and Venus? To Jupiter and Pluto? To the surface of the sun? To the space between galaxies? At what point are we scratching an itch that developed in such a different context that there is simply no rational way to justify it anymore?
It's quite human to view our natural impulses and desires as being imbued with some sort of absolute value and integrity, to view our emotions as guided by an unseen truth beyond questioning. But they are tools, tools constrained by the environment in which they were forged over evolutionary time.