By your logic, people starving or being bombed could stop famine and wars because they have more motivation. What actually happens: whoever has more power wins.
I have the power over my browser. I won't consume ads.
The problem for content produces is that if I end up in a situation where I can't get your content without ads (I'm willing to pay), then I'm eventually going to not view your content, and I'm going to not share your content, and others will do the same, and you'll see readership drop. When readership drops, any revenue you had from ads will also drop because some of the people I shared your articles with viewed your ads, even if I didn't.
Furthermore, when the OS vendors are putting ad blocking tech into their browsers, I no longer worry about the ad producers having the better tech. When smart bomb detection is built-in to the OS, all I need is an update and mom and pop can avoid the bombs as well as anyone.
> I'm going to not share your content, and others will do the same, and you'll see readership drop
The point is that you're extrapolating your intent and level of control to the rest of the internet audience, which you're not colluding with.
The ad-blocking at OS level is arguably even easier to detect than browser-based. It also doesn't stop advertising in apps, which is an example of how Apple is incentivized to keep advertising for it's own platform (i.e. Apple is looking out for #1 when it comes to blocking ads, not you).
I can turn off JavaScript, those people being bombed can not turn off the sky.
If it gets to the point that sites are placing ads into the content themselves, I will likely end up sticking only to sites that are subscription or donation based.
Following that same hypothetical, you alone can dodge the bombs but most people can't, because let's face it - you're not colluding with others.
And unless you're up to date on bomb tech, even you are eventually going to get hit by a smart "ad".