DA, I don't think it should make a difference if there are no Earthlike planets within say 10 lightyears.
That's because or successors should not be shaped into something that would require such a world. In that case, it's not only freedom from our bodies, but also from our own environment and those successors could thrive even without needing planets.
What I think should be faced is a fundamental misunderstanding: the need to expand into space is not written in our genes at all but is a CULTURAL need.
We humans are seriously limited AND we are mortals.
That we fear death and oblivion (hence our wish to explore and expand, to avoid this fate) are ALSO CULTURAL! When I say "Cultural", I mean it will be subjected to change. Religions also exist in order to help us cope with the fear of death. One day, religions might be rejected or changed in sauch a way that death will be accepted and considered a natural thing.
And also, the fact that we need an Earthlike planet is a sign of our death rejection. We might accept, knowingly, that we simply can't expand out there and that it's allright to remain on Earth. Of course, we'll try our best to avoid destruction (which is instinctive) but this, only for short term dangers. I'm sure the Apollo Moon flights were possible largely because they were achievable within the lifetimes of those who started the program.
Anything that would take more than 1 generation to realize by humans, is unlikely because it would not be beneficial to those who started it.

PS: to look at ISS through a telescope is extremely challenging, especially for beginners. ISS moves extremely fast (even the Moon moves fast if the scope is not stationed to cope with Earth's rotation).

Raoul