I just personally don't think that this is right. I believe the availability of a reliable, decentralized, worldwide payment network and digital currency is much more important to civilization than NFTs.
Honest question: what would happen if instead of NFTs, we had actual transactions of the same size, that were made in favor of the Bitcoin adoption? Would regular users still have to pay lots in fees? Does this reasoning conflict rather the 1 MB block instead of bitcoin being a currency-exclusive network?
While I don't hate the idea of NFTs, the problem is that they're just glorified contracts that nobody can / does enforce.
I do believe there is no point in owning an NFT, for the reasons you outline. But I can't force this view to anyone who believes otherwise. I can try to convince him to not buy dumb and pointless things, but I can't forbid him from doing so. You don't go well with freedom if you follow that route. It's similar to saying "I personally don't recognize point in Bitcoin, so let's forbid energy from being spent in Bitcoin mining".
For example the NFT guys could easily create a side-chain that is secure by merged-mining which would in turn provide a much better market (incentive) for miners to make money while securing that side-chain without "attacking" bitcoin.
Or not mess with NFTs in the first place, as it's plain dumb concept. But, if they want to, I won't be an obstacle. They're already discouraged from the main layer, as it's too expensive. But you know what they say-- never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.