Actually it's probably one of the most worthwhile questions, philosophically and practically. If this question doesn't get properly considered, we end up with blind glorification of activities whose main selling point is revenue generation and shitty feedback loops in society over generations.
Not inherently. Only in the cases where it's a true choice between something revenue generating, and something people are doing for social good.
Your perception of social good (people dedicating their time to intellectual puzzles you deem worthy vs people wasting their time on these meaningless displays of skill), is different to someone else's.
My point was perhaps too broad - but deigning to tell someone their pursuit isn't as worthy as one you think they should be pursuing is, frankly, pointless.
That seems to assume immutable human values, and/or a postmodern view of the world. Promoting thoughtfulness about the meaning of human activity seems pretty valuable, regardless of the conclusion.
Perhaps it's the medium of this discussion, but the reason your comment was downvoted was because it came across as judgemental and dismissive.
I've been CMO of a startup, and could spend my free time developing marketing plans for NGOs looking after sick kids to get them more donations, but I spend my talents and time watching arbitrary funny cat videos.
I know it's not the highest order use of abilities, but assuming people should only pursue what you deem to be the most worthy, and dismissing other pursuits, is a thought process so academic it's almost pointless to real-world discourse.
Cogently dismissing other pursuits is an incredibly effective form of recruitment, so there's nothing inherently academic about it.
"Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me and change the world?”