People will spend money to prevent something that may happen in 20 years, before they spend money to prevent something that may happen in 50 years.

I don't think the majority agrees with you, because if they did they would divert all the cancer and heart disease research funds to prevent global warming, which they would never do.

I'll try a different approach, to prove that free will is an illusion;
1. I would not trust the future of the human race on the free will of the 72 million people that voted for Trump. I will trust the future of the human race on the "program" that dictates their other decisions.
2. Humans allow themselves to be humiliated by dating rituals (especially online dating), and feel guilty if they are not pursuing a mate, because the "program" dictates that they must keep their ancestral river flowing downstream.
3. Most of each person's important choices and decisions are influenced by the drive to procreate, and to protect their offspring. No one had to teach them this, they were born with that instinctive drive. That is the "program" that I am referring to, which controls their free will.

Of course, I can't absolutely prove that free will is an illusion.

However, I don't think you can disprove my theory. I think that the reasons I have expressed in this post present the possibility that my theory is true, so I will give myself 1/2 point.

The laws of probability allows us to see that the "causation chain" must be controlled by an external source that is able to rig the outcome.

What are the odds that:
1. The human race could survive all the pandemics and wars that have occurred in the past 6 million years?
2. Fallible humans would always make the right decisions to sustain the human race? We sure got lucky in WW2, and with N. Korea.
3. Most importantly: Each person reading this overcame the zillion-to-one odds that not only their individual sperm won the 300-million-to-one lottery (in one ejaculation), but all their ancestors won the 300-million-to-one lottery. You, as an individually unique soul, would not be reading this unless the "causation chain" had allowed you to overcome those ridiculous odds.

Without a master plan, humans wouldn't have lasted 100 years. Too many "coincidences" had to happen for the race to last 6 million years.

I don't think we just happened to win the evolutionary lottery. I think there is a well-written "program" whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension, which has compelled us to follow an efficient algorithm.

That "program" includes the illusion that we have free will, and the motivation to succeed and receive recognition, and the pursuit of sex.

By "free will", I mean the assertion that humans can actually make their own choices, instead of following a master plan that is beyond their control

Here is why I think "a specific sequence of events can only happen without it":
I think it is impossible that our current reality is the result of 6 million years of free will. I don't believe that free will would have resulted in such a favorable outcome.

What God wants, God gets

In response to your assertion that another timeline might be similar to the present timeline, consider a person that causes other people to become violent. Some people (not all) may not have become violent if that person never existed.
If you removed one important person from the timeline (e.g. Hitler), the "other timeline" would have been much different from the present timeline.

We do not know if the world would have been a "better place" if Hitler was never born. It is possible that one of the people he exterminated might have procreated to create someone far worse, someone that could have caused the end of all humanity. We will never know, but we do know that humanity still exists.

We also know that we are using a wonderful technology right now, which allows us to exchange ideas in a manner that was never imagined 50 years ago. In my opinion, this technology was created by a combination of procreations that was not determined by "free will".

Instead of "That could not possibly be a coincidence.", I should have said "That could not possibly have occurred as a result of free will."

I disagree with your assertion that "any number of combination would have lead to a similar result". Einstein would not have been born from any other two parents, and no other human would have made his discoveries at exactly the same time that he made them, which was required for subsequent discoveries to have been made at exactly the time that they were made.

IIf the parents of the following great composers had not procreated, music would not be as it is today: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Stravinsky.

If Kurt Vonnegut's parents had not procreated, I would not be pondering this issue right now.

Thank you for your reply. I posted this issue because it is not uncommon for other people to change my mind.

Based upon their replies, I am now considering the possibility of continuing to create music just for the music's sake, and not for the need of recognition. This is a difficult adjustment for me to make, because I respect and economize my time enormously.
To quote Muhammad Ali: "Live everyday as if it were your last because someday you're going to be right."

When you quoted me as saying "I just enjoy doing it", I was referring to my daily piano playing, and not my composing.

It may surprise you to know that I was actually a very successful composer, and I am still receiving BMI royalties. I am still able to compose music of a very high quality (and even make a few bucks doing it), So no, I do not think that I am "not a very good composer". Instead, with very little opportunities for new music to receive recognition, and for the reasons that I previously described, there are other ways I would rather spend my time.

I should have used the word "recognized" instead of "successful", since "successful" infers monetary consideration.
It doesn't matter how much money Aaron Copland made from Appalachian Spring. It is a well recognized piece, and deservedly so.
If Copland had created that piece in 2020, and synthesized it like I did here (exactly like his original orchestrations), then he would receive the same amount of listens that I got:

Appalachian Spring, synthesized

It was fun creating that, but I received more satisfaction creating a website that is used by thousands of people (OnlineMidi.com).

Thank you all for your intelligent replies.
The question I presented in this topic (Why bother creating new music?) lends itself to a very basic philosophical question:

What is the best way for someone to spend their time?

If you don't care if your music is heard by others, and just the enjoyment of the creative process justifies the work, then you are spending your time wisely. Unfortunately, I don't fall into that category. If I spend weeks creating music that will not receive any recognition, then I feel like I am wasting my time.

To each his own.

If I am given the following three choices of how I will spend my time, I will select #2 and #3 over #1.
1. Create music that few people will hear.
2. Win an online poker tournament.
3. Create a website that is used by thousands of people.

It has nothing to do with the monetary compensation. It is the feeling of accomplishment (and ecstasy, when I win an online poker tournament) that each choice provides, in return for the work that was necessary to perform that choice.

I am not trying to discourage budding composers. If you choose to spend your time creating music, knowing that you will probably never achieve any success or recognition, then go for it.

Thank you for your reply. However, it seems as idealistic as the other person who said "There will always be an audience for an honest song".

1. If you receive no recognition for your composition, how many times do you have to listen to it to justify the amount of time you spent creating it?

2. If the only reason to create music is to listen to it yourself, can't you receive the same aural satisfaction by listening to any of the fantastic compositions that have already been created, without incurring the work of creating it yourself?

Here are the last five musical acts on Kimmel: GIVĒON, H.E.R., Perfume Genius, 24kGoldn, Ozuna, and Woodkid. Those are the artists that are getting the most hits.
Wouldn't you rather spend your time listening to one of the hundreds of CD's that you KNOW are good?
Good new music does not get heard, because most of the promoted new music is crap that caters to people who follow the Kardashians.
I have enough good music on my shelf to listen to until the day I die (including all 9 Radiohead CD's), so why should I spend time creating anything new?

If the Beatles, Pink Floyd, or U2 was a new band in 2021, here is what they would experience:
1. They would spend hundreds of hours creating their magnus opus, and a clever video to get the music noticed.
2. Their YouTube video would receive a few dozen views, so they now have to spend time promoting it, which is not how they would prefer to spend their time.
3. They spend hundreds of hours on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, pimping themselves to beg for listeners.
4. That effort results in a few hundred more listeners, and maybe a few dozen followers.
5. They then sit down to plan their next masterpiece, while the voice inside their heads is screaming "Why bother?".

Thank you for all your comments.
Unfortunately, the following comment is false: "There will always be an audience for an honest song".
On Soundcloud and Youtube, there are thousands of "honest songs" that millions of hours were spent creating, and there is very little audience for 99.99% of them.
Pink Floyd and the Beatles became successful after years of touring. If they posted the same music today, without touring they would receive very few listens.
With the easy access to state-of-the art recording techniques, there are now too many cooks in the kitchen. Unless you are Justin Bieber, or have a manager that can get you on Kimmel, your music will not be heard, so don't bother creating it unless you are doing it just because you enjoy the process of creating it.