No, I don't think that's how they'd view an unwillingness to set aside a miniscule fraction of our resources to prevent absolute destruction.
Well, it depends on the details. We face other more pressing risks than asteroid strikes - and we do already allocate some resources to preventing such strikes - that's part of how we know what the risks are.
Obliteration doesn't prove negligence - it's a risky universe out there.
LessWrong is not big on discussion of non-AI existential risks. But Neil deGrasse Tyson notes killer asteroids not just as a generic problem, but as a specific one, naming Apophis as an imminent hazard.
So treat this as your exercise for today: what are the numbers, what is the risk, what are the costs, what actions are appropriate? Assume your answers need to work in the context of a society that's responded to the notion of anthropogenic climate change with almost nothing but blue vs. green politics.