Dunno. Firstly, I really doubt that a community can be "fixed" permanently or at least for a prolonged period: when a problem has been solved, a new one will arise, when a need has been satisfied, a new one will appear, so you won't ever reach that "they all lived happily ever after" state. A community, just like a mechanism, needs to be maintained constantly. Secondly, I don't think that the resources that the countries actively engaged in space exploration allocate to their space programs would make a significant contribution to the improvement of the population's well-being in said countries, that is, to the aforementioned "maintenance". Thirdly, the technologies developed for space programs can afterwards be recycled for more down-to-earth (heh) purposes, including even consumer goods. Sure, this kind of research may not produce something useful for the society immediately (or at all), but arguing against it on this basis would also mean that the funds spent on other branches of science similar in that regard to space research should be reallocated to social needs. Doing so will just hinder the technological progress since all the sciences influence each other, and I strongly believe that although technological progress is not the only prerequisite for social progress, it's still a necessary one.
There is also something disturbing about the notion that we should sacrifice space for stuff, for me personally at least. If we actually "fix" all the perceived problems, what kind of society would we get? The proponents of such notions probably think that the humanity will enter some sort of Golden Age of Happiness, but I suspect that the society devoid of dreams (yeah, space is not the only dream, but I really doubt that that sort of pseudo-humanistic attitude will stop after killing only one dream) and completely obsessed with material wealth will just become fat, lazy and complacent consumerist swamp. And I know what I'm talking about because I'm a skinny
fat, lazy and complacent man myself. XDDDDD