It doesn't. My point is that finding people, healthy food, safe places and so on pleasant and beautiful benefits us. We use things like symmetry and color to decide if those things are beautiful. Flowers, rainbows etc just happen to have symmetry, color, simplicity, etc too so they get considered beautiful, almost by accident if you know what I mean. I believe in biology that concept is called a spandrel after the architectural term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)
I think there's an argument to be made about earthly things being beautiful in that they are signals of a habitable environments thriving ecosystems. What has somewhat mystified me however is that we find extra terrestrial things just as, if not more, beautiful. In all likelihood we should find them absolutely banal and repulsive. There is nothing interesting for life out there. And yet, I think I speak for everyone when I say, there is universal appeal in everything out there in the cosmos. From moons to planets, stars to galaxies, nebula, supernovas, blackholes, the blue planet whatever is out there, is all incredibly visually appealing to humans. We are drawn towards them like few things on earth can. There is absolutely no evolutionary reason for us to do so because life evolved without as much as a sight of outer space. It is a hostile, desolate environment and yet in the words of Buzz Aldrin when he first stepped on the moon, there is something magnificent about that desolation.
My dog has no interest in depictions of the moon or other celestial bodies as near as I can tell. Probably apes would be similar. I think we're more drawn to the (human) story around the exploration than the actual locations themselves. (Source: I watch a lot of space stuff around my dog. Come to think of it, he doesn't show much interest in landscapes around the world either.)
One thing to bear in mind is that dogs devote much more brain power to their sense of smell than we do. To them, it's a fundamental part of how they perceive the world.
... researchers were surprised to see the sheer extent of the smell wiring within dog brains.
Veterinary neuroimaging researcher Erica Andrews of Cornell University and colleagues have just mapped domestic dogs' (Canis familiaris) olfactory brain pathways using diffusion MRI scans. This technique uses differences in the flow of molecules, such as water, to create a complex map of tissue structures.
With the data the team built 3D maps of the dog brain's nerve tracts, and traced extensive white matter linking olfactory brain regions, revealing a huge, previously unknown, information highway between dogs' olfactory and visual systems.
"We've never seen this connection between the nose and the occipital lobe, functionally the visual cortex in dogs, in any species," Cornell University neuroimaging researcher Pip Johnson explains.
"It was really consistent. And size-wise, these tracts were really dramatic compared to what is described in the human olfactory system, more like what you'd see in our visual systems."
This is likely what allows our clever canine friends to function extremely well, even without sight. For example, blind dogs can still play fetch.
In that sense (!), I guess astronomy just isn't that interesting to them.
I think "habitable environments" and "thriving ecosystems" have a lot to do with the answer. I believe it's for the same reason that we instinctively like brooks and rivers – a steady supply of water is essential to survival.
Desolate landscapes used in books and films versus "flowering garden of eden"-type of depictions in these same books and films play on these instincts, as do floral motifs in graphic and architectural design.
Or compare how a bush covered in caterpillar webs makes you feel versus one covered in thousands of unblemished flowers. These are primal responses.
Maybe we are hardcoded to like our environment, you will try to live where you like. Also if you like your environment, food, and other things, you like living. And that is good for life
