> I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creati

> I remain unconvinced by the argument that without financial incentives, creative individuals will cease to create and society will be deprived of their creative contributions. Except that artists well into the 20th century were continuously seeking patronage or success with the greater public. Because they had to live. Erasmus was seeking shelter at least until his 50s, and trying to keep publishers from printing his work (or work under his name) without paying him. > Society would not have missed out on much if some famous author published only their first 3 truly inspired works, which they wrote to satisfy their creative urge, but not the 20 potboilers that followed. You don't see the contradiction there?