[sunshinelackof]

Unfortunately I think that's a little idealistic. Compulsory support and funding by the state for the arts and sciences is necessary for a host of reasons. You could say similar things about about climate change - if you care about it, you pay for it. But we know that the individual cannot solve climate change and that it requires some form of top down movement. Maybe it's not fair comparison, but I'm arguing that continual and consistent support for arts and sciences is basically a requirement for the same reasons and that in practice only governments are able to maintain.

Now on the individual level it might be a dumb decision, though it's a hard argument to make to someone in that position. What an enormous opportunity cost it is to not take the loan if you think you'll succeed. It's a bad situation for everyone involved and there isn't a good answer to the individuals in or about to be in that situation.

[firic]

Climate change is a big issue that in order to fix (if it is even possible) involves many people working together. No matter how much C02 you conserve, if a tanker ship exists, it will pollute more than you can ever do in your life. With the case of arts, if you buy a painting you will directly encourage the creation of a new painting.

> What an enormous opportunity cost it is to not take the loan if you think you'll succeed. It's a bad situation for everyone involved and there isn't a good answer to the individuals in or about to be in that situation.

As for a solution for people in that situation, I can't think of any. But then again, people with prison records, facial disfigurements, born in a 3rd world country also struggle to live. Yet if we want to make life easier for them it will make life much more difficult for us. You may call that selfish, but that's just what humans are.