4 ms·
Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact,
by morgante 10y ago
Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point.
Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless.
People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise.
If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.
- Can_Not 10y ago> If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.
- morgante 10y ago> Why do we need signals? Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal. You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal. There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away. Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.
- Can_Not 10y agoYes, that is the exact kind of ritualistic barbarianism that modern societies should be avoiding. There's nearly endless better ways to have that money spent, even before you get to the "blood" part of blood diamonds.
- gech 10y ago> Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away. No, we try to make the case for the waste and stupidity, and when a group still can not come to terms with it, we shame them.
- saiya-jin 10y agoonly immature people with little real relationship experience would consider this childish signaling worth a dime. the only signal being passed is bowing to peer pressure just because you don't want to stick out
- hohenheim 10y agoIf you need money to show your devotion and dedication to a relationship, you will be having a hard time. A relationship makes sense as long as parties enjoy each others company regardless of the size of diamond on the finger. If something external, such as an expensive ring, is to keep the relationship afloat, I have hard time seeing a point of living and sharing your life with someone.
- joesb 10y agoSaying you are married to someone is also a kind of signal. Why do you propose? Why do you say "I love you"? They are all signal.
- sebbySebbyBinx 10y agoAlternative signal: Bitcoin. If the engagement ends poorly, the Bitcoin can be un-earmarked and so the entire value can be salvaged. Many other obvious pros as well. http://thebtcring.com/ http://thebtcring.com/
- morgante 10y agoYes giving a girl a Bitcoin ring is certainly a signal of something.
- Nursie 10y agoThis is a cultural thing you've bought into, that a man must give a woman a tool to signal with. In other cultures this is not important or works the other way around. I'm anti diamond and your pleas to come up with another useless signal fall on deaf ears - this manufactured need for the signal itself is something we should be fighting as we progress. For a start it's pretty damned sexist and regressive
- morgante 10y agoWhy do you assume I've "bought into" it? I have no intention to marry any time soon, I just think it's unhelpful to completely ignore the reason diamonds are used for engagement rings.
- Nursie 10y agoBought into idealogically speaking. I think the 'reason' is a rationalisation and not hard and fast, it's also culture-specific so hardly transcendent. That's why I take issue with the idea of replacing one signal with the other - the worth of tge signal is entirely subjective and the signal itself is rather out of place in the modern world.
- touleier 10y agoOh dear. We are constantly subjected to this sort of scolding in the name of some political ideology (in this case, 'wimmin'). Diamonds are exactly about signaling, as is an Ivy League education. Attributing useful properties to either only confuses the signal, which is purest when there is absolutely no utility. Since Ivy League schools pre-select, it is not hard to show that they add no value in and of themselves, apart from fleecing the recipients in exchange for safe spaces.
- Nursie 10y agoScolding? I'm just pointing out that the basis of this signalling behaviour (if it is as described) is somewhat sexist and regressive - it makes assumptions about the man being the provider and the woman being kept. Diamonds are indeed all about signalling. Enjoy yourself doing that. Some of us will be laughing at you behind your back for falling for the con though.