[swiftcoder]

You suggest that the only reason he shouldn't, is that others might have to support him if he stops hunting. I'm saying that the arts (and especially oral traditions in a pre-literate society) are a net benefit to society that do in fact warrant collective investment to support

[brainwad]

Do we have a dearth of writing? If anything, we seem have a massive oversupply.

[RugnirViking]

the traditional answer to this is something along the lines of the idea that writing is not fungible; that is, just because we have a lot of writing, doesn't mean we have enough good writing. What good writing is varies, but clearly there is some level of quality that exists, at least at the bottom end (its not hard to find people to agree on whether a work is objectively bad writing)

unfortunately, precisely defining good writing is difficult, much like good coding. And as such, whether there is enough good writing, or "how much better good writing is to bad writing", or "what the effects of good writing are on the individual or society" are questions that we arent remotely prepared to answer. I imagine many people advocating for support for writers believe on some level both that good writing has very positive effects for the readers and society, and that there also isn't enough of it, or at least that its drowned out by perverse incentives and mountains of bad writing

[swiftcoder]

Bad writing is typically a necessary prerequisite of good writing - it's pretty rare for a Dickinson or a Fitzgerald to just appear fully-formed out of thin air. The more it is viable for folks to spend their time honing their writing skills, the more likely we are to discover great writers.

This is, notably, the exact same argument we make for why tech firms should hire junior engineers. If one doesn't keep subsidising opportunities for the up-and-comers in every field, one quick runs out of experienced candidates.