The idea of paying "three months salary" for a wedding ring also came from the diamond industry. Previously, an engagement ring or band would be whatever the hell the person wanted, but the diamond cartels pushed this narrative that all woman want are diamonds.
Well... the information is correct. In fact certain Debeers personnel were long considered criminals in the United States and subject to arrest. They were also banned from directly seeking their products in the United States. The United States buys roughly 45% of the diamonds sold commercially in the world, thanks largely to a campaign by debeers. The “tradition” of the diamond engagement ring isn’t some age old cultural thing- it’s a series of commercials and marketing from around the time of my great grandparents. So while yes- much about diamonds is hype, bullshit, or manufactured demand, the conclusion is false. There are many things special about diamonds. They just aren’t as “special” as advertised or in the ways advertised. Diamonds are hard. They can cut glass (but actually do sustain damage and erosion to finish like polish..) but they are not “tough.” A diamond can shatter like glass from a bump or drop- especially if it occurs on the diamonds shear plane. Diamonds...
Have optical properties that make them refract light in a way people like. The “fire” colors and sparkle of a diamond- however these optical properties are inferior to cubic zirconium and many other stones both naturally occurring and engineered. Lab created diamonds can be made more “perfect” than any diamond one would likely find in nature- and it is again- marketing which sullied the Cz and the lab diamond. Diamonds make a good cheap source of materials for making many electronics, optical instruments, cutting, drilling, shaping and machining tools. It isn’t that diamonds aren’t something interesting and useful, or even that they can’t be pretty- but much of the desire for diamonds is caused by hype, overblown or patiently false claims and tacked on sentimentality that was artificially created, and often have horrible human costs.
Really the only "rare" diamond at this point would be a natural occurring large diamond with color qualities and sheer size.. like the hope diamond. I'm betting with the right machinery even a diamond exactly like the hope diamond could be made... but how many would you have to make before you got the Boron concentration correct? You'd be selling off impostors for fractions of what they'd cost to make after you consider getting the cut right.
To make an exact reproduction of the Hope Diamond would be trial and error. To make a “superior” stone of similar size, I don’t think would be too difficult. But you’re likely right that it would take a few shots, I think it’s more that it’s pointless to do. Unless you had some special application where you required a diamond that size (like a laser or other equipment...) I just can’t see much demand for it.
"They have warehouses in multiple countries filled to the ceiling with diamonds, but don't sell more than so many a year, to purposefully drive the price up and make more money." Wasn't this part of the post trying to convey the same?
Newspaper articles be like "Millennials are destroying the diamond industry!" to which I say GOOD. The diamond industry has been a fraud since the beginning and the boomers fell for it. Young newlyweds would nowadays rather spend the money on something useful, like for example furnishing their entire apartment because that's how expensive diamonds are.
Having a monopoly on something means you control the price of an item, and can artificially increase it, which is happening with diamonds obviously. While you might argue that it's a luxury item and people don't have to buy it (which I agree with, and I never would've bought one myself), having proper monopoly laws is extremely important because of the potential for non-luxury items to be exploited that way.
You're moving the goal posts a little, I wasn't talking about laws. Antitrust laws are generally a good idea.
One way no one wants them and doesn't buy them, the other way they're expensive and people want them for that very reason. I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other in this case.
To see the problem we have to go back to elementary school. In essence that is what we are discussing. Out at recess one day, Suzy Specklepats finds a really cool rock. Todd Flenderman Sees the rock and that people like it. He finds where Suzy got the rock and there are more. Because he is bigger, stronger, and faster, he sits right down in the middle of the rock pile and starts charging people $1 for a rock, then $5. Now- it’s just a stupid rock. No one needs it, and if they don’t want to pay they don’t have to, and if they want that rock bad enough to pay 6 months allowance- they will. But- if one of the kids told teacher, teacher would tell Todd he had to share, because he doesn’t own those rocks, and there are more than enough rocks that anyone who wanted one could have one. Teacher won’t make Todd dog rocks up himself, but would say Todd needs to let anyone who wants a rock have a fair chance to get a rock. Because while there is nothing inherently wrong...
... with making a profit, there is something very wrong about Todd’s behavior. Because the guiding principal of market driven capitalism isn’t money. That’s where the reds are mixed up. The guiding principal of capitalism is development and advancement. Bettering the world. Money serves capitalism- not the other way. If Todd had created something, if Todd had done some unique work no one else was willing or able to do, if Todd did t just find a rock pile and sit on it- he’d be in better shape. But that is lazy, it uses the law as a shield to prevent competition and to prevent the spreading of resources. That is not the capitalist spirit. A true capitalist spirit seeks to encourage competition so that we are on our toes, so that if someone else can do it better than we can, they get the reward and we have to catch up. Todd isn’t a true capitalist. Todd is sack of shit hoarding rocks for the benefit of no one but Todd.
Lol, I know, I do understand the principal, I just think that in both of those cases (rocks and diamonds) the failure of that principal doesn't lead to any particularly bad result.
@garlog I don't think I was moving the goal post. The principle of anti-monopoly laws should apply to everything is what I was trying to say, we can't make an exception for diamonds just because not that many people buy them. Making that exception sets a dangerous precedent for more convenient exceptions and more people making ridiculous amounts of money with a borderline fraudulent scheme.
A fair and reasonable balanced reply. I get where you are coming from. Sometimes- we just don’t much care. It has its pros and its cons for us and the world- but in the end, it’s a beautiful country where one can choose not to care, so I will drink to that.
Sometimes you just gotta not care to save your mental health, honestly. I'll drink to that too. (well, I'm drinking energy drinks because I'm studying for an exam, but that counts, right?)
That said though, cases like this one make me think of the quote "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
Well said. Of course- I do ponder this quote. One must wonder about the relativity of evil. Few if any humans of record can be said to wholly be good or evil. But, if we go with a wink and nod that we agree what “evil” means- I would suggest that in brevity we could change the quote to: “the price of extremes is its weight fold in extremes.” So many “evil” men were evil BECAUSE they cared. Not about all men or all things, but about something. Even something with some shred of nobility. There are so few “cartoon villains” in the world. There are some who seek power or money as their own ends of course- but by and large those we would call “evil,” are those who sought to change the world, and went to extremes to do what we thought was wrong, but they and others like them thought was good. So perhaps in caring we must find balance. It is also said that one mustn’t win every battle, just the ones that count. So maybe sometimes it’s not only good for us but good for all that we temper...
... our care. Of course- I suppose what is best might be that we live in the way that we feel is best, and always try to do better- in the end, we are all just trying to do what we think is right I suppose. There is a strong difference in my mind between an apathy of ignoring and an apathy of participating. So much from media bias and name recognition celebrities, to even diamond monopolies are apparitions we feed with our attention. To ignore them is to kill them, because they feed off people’s attentions. When you take their names away, when they go unspoken and unrecognized they are a face in the crowd, judged on merits and not brand. The best way to kill hype is arguably apathy to the hype. This is why so many “millennials kill...” articles are about institutions that are over bloated and over hyped. Apathy to generations of hype that kept these things alive.
Agreed, it's a thing to ponder. I personally don't believe in evil as a standalone concept, just that there are differences between what most people aka society wants, and what an individual wants. For example, when somebody's fucked up mentally and enjoys seeing people suffer, they're considered evil by society when they decide to act upon that desire and hurt someone. Similarly, when someone decides to get rich by selling blood diamonds and creating a monopoly, driving the price up and aggressively eliminating competition, they're not really doing it because they want to be a Disney villain. They're doing it to enrich themselves but the way they're doing it goes against what most people want, so it could be considered evil, or if not evil at least incredibly selfish.
But I think most people aren't really like that, most people at least consider the welfare of others when deciding whether to do something.
(cont.) However, the apathy of the majority is what lets these selfish assholes get away with their terrible behavior. This, I think, has been, is, and always will be true, the majority of people just don't really care.
I think you raise a very interesting point with the apathy of ignoring and apathy of participating, I've never thought of that.
This might be TMI but I'm a broke college student so I used to buy clothes from budget stores but one day my conscience just kicked me in the ass with the realization of how bad the working conditions are for the people who make budget clothing. So I thought maybe expensive, high end brands have better conditions. I did a bit of research and turns out that no, even the stuff that costs thousands of dollars by Prada, Gucci etc is made in the very same sweatshops. It almost felt like I couldn't win, that I participate one way or another. So I just said "fuck it" and started shopping at thrift shops, and my conscience has been clear ever since.
I think it’s in the definition of apathy- as in: apathy of want vs apathy of means. When one wants a thing, and is apathetic as to “how the steak gets on the table, as long as their is steak,” it enables evil, those producing the result onow they have no standards to meet, and are left to weight their own morality against what they find most advantageous to them. When one is apathetic to want, they do not desire that which evil or good means would provide. The parallel is ambition. Ambition sends people to the moon, creates vaccines and “clean” technology. It builds families and homes and a “better world.” But ambition also sits behind monopoly, genocide, betrayal... apathy toawards evil itself is- in some ways an empowerment of evil, but that also implies that every person on earth holds responsibility for the others. We could say that by neither opposing or aiding good, one is likewise enabling good to happen right? But equally so, by the same argument- one who is not helping with...
... good would be passively empowering evil wouldn’t they? That’s the nature of neutrality, and apathy can be a form of nietrality. A zero sum that helps and hurts good and evil equally, but since few things are wholly good or evil, it also avoids those tangential goods and evils of the issue. Not the most ambitious practice sure, not an active way to shape the world- but I say this, while everyone should have a right to shape the world, such as voting- isn’t it alright to say that you are not informed, effected, or capable enough to be shaping the world? Just because one can speak, doesn’t mean they should- and there is a certain wisdom in knowing when one may do as much harm as good by speaking, trying to enact their will. I have bad ideas all the time that have good intentions. I certainly don’t act on those, because good intentioned or not I am aware that my acting has just as much a chance to go as badly or worse....
.... and surely, not every person can aid in every attempt at good can they? Not an every person oppose every evil. If you donated time or money to every worthy cause or charity that you were aware of, or crossed your path, what would be left for other things, and it’s likely that with all your time and money gone there would still be more worthy causes you didn’t have time or resources to help. So if by not helping them, you are empowering evil- then we are all guilty of this sort of neutral apathy, is it morally better to be aware and care deeply for wrong and do nothing, or be unaware or uninvolved through apathy and do nothing? The end result is still nothing, still a 0 sum total of good or evil you’ve actually committed.
There is a reason why the gold standard existed instead of a diamond standard. It's a shame we left that... but whatever. Gold actually has application value and doesn't rust. It's also an amazing conductor. It's pretty close to being the most incredible substance we can mine that isn't directly necessary for survival. It earned the rep.
Diamonds though? Fuck diamonds.
One way no one wants them and doesn't buy them, the other way they're expensive and people want them for that very reason. I don't see a reason to prefer one over the other in this case.
That said though, cases like this one make me think of the quote "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
But I think most people aren't really like that, most people at least consider the welfare of others when deciding whether to do something.
I think you raise a very interesting point with the apathy of ignoring and apathy of participating, I've never thought of that.
This might be TMI but I'm a broke college student so I used to buy clothes from budget stores but one day my conscience just kicked me in the ass with the realization of how bad the working conditions are for the people who make budget clothing. So I thought maybe expensive, high end brands have better conditions. I did a bit of research and turns out that no, even the stuff that costs thousands of dollars by Prada, Gucci etc is made in the very same sweatshops. It almost felt like I couldn't win, that I participate one way or another. So I just said "fuck it" and started shopping at thrift shops, and my conscience has been clear ever since.
Diamonds though? Fuck diamonds.