Not that I agree with the original, but that's a bit like asking why would anybody play music or make art (activities that rarely involve money)? Because they enjoy it.
Certain people would of course still do so. But of comparable scale and quality? Maybe a few, truly-committed souls, but there would certainly be an impact. Without money, even if an artist produces one work, he will quite possibly lack the means to produce another.
There is the argument that what the market wants is not always the "best" or "most innovative", but the value of art is basically determined by a "market" (even if the artist seeks validation rather than $$). It's a subjective matter, so such a problem is somewhat inherent.
Right, and taking this further: artists pay for the materials and services to do what they enjoy. If people enjoy watching competitive sports and are willing to pay, should they be banned from doing so?
Though the parent is accurate that in our western society doing a thing because you enjoy it is punished, both monetarily and socially, because you're not efficiently using your time to make someone else some money.
