The expression "of no earthly use" is one of those pithy sayings that is normally taken to mean simply "useless". That is a very human interpretation. It must be unpacked to get at the pith of it.

"Earthly" use implies an alternative, which logically would be otherworldly, or perhaps heavenly. Or "God only knows." There are more things in heaven and earth than we mere humans can account for.

What this brings into focus is the prevalence of anthropocentric views of the world. Until recently the environmentalist movement seemed to recognize that this could be a problem. But it presumed that it was a purely human responsibility to address it. Now the "woke" movement has arrived with the even more anthropocentric view that focuses attention on inequities among people.

In the process, attention gets focused on the differences among human groups. Human cultures get singled out as being insufficiently aware of the needs of other groups. Often central cultural beliefs of these groups are blamed for the perceived inequities. Which leads to criticism of cultural beliefs in general. Which can lead to a stance of antireligion. Another anthrpocentric conclusion.

There is an underlying factor which has resulted from the rise of the internet. Undoubtedly a good thing in itself, as it raises awareness of differences among peoples. But this becomes another anthropocentric focus.

In the midst of all this anthropocentrism, it has become far too easy to lose sight of the bigger picture that religious beliefs helped keep in view. If there is a center, it is clearly not anthropic.

There is a natural tendency for any person, perhaps for any being of any type, to perceive itself as the center of its own earthly reality. It requires an expansion of awareness to extend ones self-importance to granting similar importance to others. And it requires a further expansion of awareness to grant importance to others who are not included in ones anthropocentric world view. To include those who appear to be of no earthly use.

For example, technological advances have enabled oceanographers to send remote explorers into the unexplored depths of the oceans. There they have made unexpected discoveries of life forms that appear to thrive in this extremely hostile environment. This is the sort of discovery that the anthropocentric view might well dismiss as "of no earthly use". But now it turns out that these deep bottom dwellers may play an important role in sequestering the hydrocarbon remains that filter down to the depths when dwellers at the higher levels of the oceans die.

Indeed, many things that the anthropocentric view takes to be of no earthly use may well have very important earthly uses. Along with those otherworldly uses the narrow-minded among us refuse to value.