Media Consumption/Production

This site is kind of my social network right now, so forgive me.

A concept I've stumbled on a few times mainly in relation to media is consumption vs production. That consuming media without producing it is bad, pathetic, something one shouldn't do. That one shouldn't be passionate about being entertained and produce more than one consumes.

I guess I can't make sense of it, and am a bit scared. I have no creative talents, but I consume constantly. How does this even work out: I can't draw, act, or direct, so I'm not allowed to watch movies or TV? I can't play music or sing so I'm not allowed to listen to music (which I do all the time)? Or, how does the ratio work - like, write a book for every 50 books you read? Or, you've listened to 20 hours of music, now you need to make something music of your own in order to nor be a leech? Why is consumption by those who can't produce so wrong?

Or maybe this is just another iteration of the "get off your butt and get come constructive hobbies" line I've been hearing so much lately. Could someone explain this to me?

I didn't understand your post. Why aren't you allowed to watch movies if you cannot act? What is your assumption here?

I can't play in the NBA, but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate what those guys do. I can't sing (at all), but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate a great opera.

Something that always fascinated me about creating something is so many artists do so without wanting anyone to experience what they've made. It's just not something that makes sense to me because it seems like their voices are just shouting in the darkness. To me, without someone to listen, I don't have a voice as a writer. It's a two-way road. I need a reader for me to write and obviously, a reader needs a writer.

So the idea of consuming without creating isn't necessarily correct in my opinion. The consumer is absolutely necessary for the act!

Can you explain where this concept came from? I admit I don't understand it...

I have heard this before and thought it bull pucky then and still think it bull pucky. Most entertainers(writers, actors, musicians etc...) do what they do because they enjoy it and want people to enjoy what they do. One TV can be "consumed" by billions of people. It's not like suddenly because you didn't come up with an idea entertainment will cease to exist.

I will explain the theory I heard and you can say yea or nay if it's what you heard.
If more people consume than produce than we will run out of goods to be consumed. So if I read a book without producing my own work(book, movie, play, music etc...) then I have given nothing back for the privilege of consuming someone else's work. If there are more consumers than producers then sooner or later there will be no entertainment. Also it's rude because you are only being a taker.