When you say "Without the human element, we'd have no valid reason to want it in the first place," then I have to disagree. Scientists do things that are scientifically interesting irrespective of the social usefulness; and sometimes things that didn't seem useful at first turn out to be vital.

Earthquake prediction is scientifically interesting irrespective of whether it ever turns out to be useful, and I don't think the argument about funding should turn exclusively on its social utility. It may seem obvious that research which IS likely to save lives should be given precedence over other sorts of research (archaeology anyone?), but this sort of argument can be a double-edged sword and it shouldn't be pushed too far.