I mean, why does one become a scientist if one doesn't at least have some greater vision?
This kind of statement seems like conceding failure before even having tried.
I only read the abstract, but I don't think the article is nearly as prohibitive as your statements. It says that diverting the radioactive hydrogen is a "daunting problem" i.e. hard but not impossible. Even if Near-C space travel _is_ invariably fatal, that's not so broad as "interstellar travel isn't possible". There's still wormholes and hyperspace and whatever exotic ideas we might come up with in the future.
As for the "enough problems here on Earth" statements, I always say that most likely the solutions to many of those problems will be solved directly, or indirectly, by visionaries chasing the dream of traveling to the stars. More than likely anyone who says they don't want to spend money on space exploration because of "problems" here is just saying they want to spend the money on their own preferred project, whether there's a benefit or not.