I would disagree that, just because a small percentage of them succeed, the artist path is a waste of resources.
The small number of big successes over the history have more than made up for the majority of failures in art.
Perhaps a more hacker news analogy is this: just because most start ups fail does not mean that pursuing start ups are a waste of resources. The competition creates a dialogue for people to tinker and figure out what really resonates with society.
But at a human level, those who unsuccessfully pursue the arts suffer. With their most productive years spent unfruitfully, their late lives seem difficult. Often, they haven't saved anything for retirement and need to toil in menial labor until their bones crumble to dust. Especially later in life, providing for others, especially one's children, becomes increasingly important. I see a lot of my artist friends struggle emotionally because they don't have the means to give their children certain opportunities.
Comparing musicians to startups is interesting. To continue the analogy, if you're not finding product-market-fit, then it might be time to pivot :)
I admire the courage of artists (and startups, restaurants, scientists) going on such risky paths, and they collectively bring a net gain.
But I see your point in that I would hesitate to recommend pursuing art as specific advice for individuals. In this case I disagree with Ruth’s father’s parenting strategy even though Ruth became a successful pianist.
But whether or not I’ve made things better is irrelevant. What’s important is that at least I tried.
And of course it is relevant! That's what you say in your parent comment, right?