comment: >
  
  It's social darwinism because you literally invoked darwinism to defend the idea of taking away peoples means of survival. You're applying Darwinism to social structures. 
  I haven't said anything about stopping progress. I'm just pointing out that art isn't, and never has been "supposed to be a side thing" or whatever OP said
context: To /u/DeadpoolMakesMeWet, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
  You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E. >
  
  
  art is not supposed to be a full fledged job (except animation).
  
  Graphic design, printmaking, art teachers, muralists, and way more probably want to have a word with your right now. Also comic book artists- you literally have Deadpool in your name?
  And where are we drawing the line? Do you just hate illustrative digital art? Because script writing for shows/movies/games and writing books is art- with your attitude, AI text generators will take those over, too. Set designers, coordinators, stylists and clothing designers... Where are we ending the line of "art," and why do you think so lowly of it? >
  
  Well your logic about why art is not a job doesn't really make any sense. People obviously DO make a living off it and are not in poverty lol >
  
  
  art is not supposed to be a full fledged job (except animation).
  
  You sure about that? My mom has had a full time job as an artist for decades. Along with many others in her art circle. It’s their literal job to produce and sell paintings. >
  
  What? What does this have to do with my reply? >
  
  There are plenty of arguments in favor of AI art, but 'you aren't supposed to be making a living off of art' is absolutely not one. People have been making a living off of art for hundreds of years. Why are you suddenly the arbiter of what jobs are 'supposed to be' a full time job? >
  
  Art is a lot of people's real career and always has been. >
  
  I think that if people cannot adapt, they shall change their job. Survival of the fittest, as Darwin bequeathed. >
  
  That's a deeply flawed understanding of Darwin. Social Darwinism is pretty much only used by people who want to defend terrible things >
  
  How is this Social Darwinism? Call it however you want, but we cannot stop the progress just to "save jobs". And I am saying this as a person whose job may be next on the line of replacement.