It could be that for the sort of work we want to do on the south pole a human in a jacket outperforms our current robots, but for the sort of work we want to do on the moon a robot, or our future robot, will outperform a human in a spacesuit.
If we did want to become a spacefaring, world-hopping, intergalactic, etc., species in the long term, we wouldn't be sending humans into space right now, because robots are easier to keep alive and do more science with. That was the overall point I got from this and why not mars, which seems true for now.
But, even though putting humans on the rockets makes them cost more, it also garners more funding. I don't know, maybe we could convince all American schoolchildren to aspire to be robot programmers rather than astronauts. But typing this out, it seems like:
a) you could ask congress to fund robotic exploration, which maybe citizens care about and support, but if they don't then...
b) you could instead set up a giant human space program that wastes tens of billions of dollars to do nothing, then quietly siphon off a few billion here or there for JPL or SpaceX to do valuable unmanned research.
Maybe the former is possible, and you're fighting the good fight, but most voters don't read long blog posts comparing manned vs unmanned space exploration, and really when it comes to space are only excited by people standing on the moon. I do hope you convince more people, but fortunately whatever monstrosity we have now is at least a nice jobs program.
This thread notes the decline of horse girls and car guys - (it's gender roles too, but) maybe everything is just online now. Idk if toontown or minecraft or whatever perfectly replaces playing on a playground, but maybe? There is a sort of exploration, maybe not the same. There is a perception of in game risk without the risk of physical injury, but also without physical fitness benefits.