4 ms·

We should crowdfund a PR campaign that diamonds are synonyms for death and exploitation, and it’s more humane for “any gem but a diamond”. A $10 million campai

by dannyw 7y ago

We should crowdfund a PR campaign that diamonds are synonyms for death and exploitation, and it’s more humane for “any gem but a diamond”. A $10 million campaign or so, targeting youth especially, can have tremendous impacts on future generations.

jatgoodwin 7y ago
Except the diamonds discussed in the article are from Botswana, where the article states "the firm paid the Botswanan government eighty-five million dollars in taxes, and nearly thirty million in royalties, on profits of about a hundred and eighty-five million." Seems pretty good deal for the Botswanans.
- arczyx 7y ago
  To be fair, paying the government in taxes and royalty does not mean that the diamond is not obtained through exploitation of the local population while the corrupt officials took the money (this sometimes happened in my country). I don't really know about Botswana though, if those money actually go to the Botswanans then good for them.
  - grecy 7y ago
    > I don't really know about Botswana though, if those money actually go to the Botswanans then good for them. Botswana is probably the best run and least corrupt country in Southern Africa (maybe all of Africa). They've never had a war of any kind, are incredibly friendly to everyone regardless of skin color, etc. etc. They are famous for tricking the British into giving them mineral rights before they were granted independence, and have used that money wisely the benefit the local people. Huge success story, and fantastic country.
    - tacheiordache 7y ago
      We, Romanians are very emotionally attached to Botswana’s currency. It means in Romanian, the most important thing men pride themselves with.
iamgopal 7y ago
For 10 million, we can manufacture lab grown diamonds using MWPCVD.
ci5er 7y ago
So... One superbowl ad?
bluedevil2k 7y ago
You’re totally naive if you think other gems are mined more humanely than diamonds. Just look at the countries about half the diamonds are coming from these days - Russia, Canada, Australia. You think it’s going to be more humane and ethical to mine sapphires in Madagascar or Lapis in the mountains of Afghanistan?
starpilot 7y ago
shit HN says
quickthrower2 7y ago
I think you'd need to replace the diamond / expensive jewelry thing with something that appeals to the younger generation. I am not in that generation so I am not sure what that would be, but here is an idea. The diamond idea is based on having something that resembles luxury, like yachts and expensive champagne. It was initial marketed on the idea that you only love someone if you sacrifice your salary for a month or two to buy a ring. We can keep that concept (because that'll be tough to change) but shift the object: Somehow we want to make all that kind of stuff look morally disgusting, i.e. private jets with CO2 emissions that help kill the planet and people with floods and fires, and rich snobs spending money on pearls when they could be donating to charity. Another 2008 crisis which will happen like clockwork would be a great wave to surf for getting momentum behind the idea. More homeless middle class and rich bankers will make people angry. The idea is to make luxury and opulence (but not necessary money) seem bad to the middle class, in the same way as advocating slavery would seem bad. Then the replacement could be a donation to the charity that the receiver of the engagement ring chooses. The ring could be a simple 18ct gold band or gold plated. It could be 3D printed from an unusual material. Doesn't matter that it costs $50 or whatever, it's now just a symbol, it could have imprinted on it the cause that was donated to. The $10M would be spent on seed funding for a company to sell this kind of product, because then it's profits can be reinvested in marketing it further, rather than the "1 superbowl ad" that someone else mentioned in jest.

by dannyw 7y ago

jatgoodwin 7y ago

Except the diamonds discussed in the article are from Botswana, where the article states "the firm paid the Botswanan government eighty-five million dollars in taxes, and nearly thirty million in royalties, on profits of about a hundred and eighty-five million." Seems pretty good deal for the Botswanans.

arczyx 7y ago
To be fair, paying the government in taxes and royalty does not mean that the diamond is not obtained through exploitation of the local population while the corrupt officials took the money (this sometimes happened in my country). I don't really know about Botswana though, if those money actually go to the Botswanans then good for them.
- grecy 7y ago
  > I don't really know about Botswana though, if those money actually go to the Botswanans then good for them. Botswana is probably the best run and least corrupt country in Southern Africa (maybe all of Africa). They've never had a war of any kind, are incredibly friendly to everyone regardless of skin color, etc. etc. They are famous for tricking the British into giving them mineral rights before they were granted independence, and have used that money wisely the benefit the local people. Huge success story, and fantastic country.
  - tacheiordache 7y ago
    We, Romanians are very emotionally attached to Botswana’s currency. It means in Romanian, the most important thing men pride themselves with.

iamgopal 7y ago

For 10 million, we can manufacture lab grown diamonds using MWPCVD.

ci5er 7y ago

So... One superbowl ad?

bluedevil2k 7y ago

You’re totally naive if you think other gems are mined more humanely than diamonds. Just look at the countries about half the diamonds are coming from these days - Russia, Canada, Australia. You think it’s going to be more humane and ethical to mine sapphires in Madagascar or Lapis in the mountains of Afghanistan?

starpilot 7y ago

shit HN says

quickthrower2 7y ago

I think you'd need to replace the diamond / expensive jewelry thing with something that appeals to the younger generation. I am not in that generation so I am not sure what that would be, but here is an idea. The diamond idea is based on having something that resembles luxury, like yachts and expensive champagne. It was initial marketed on the idea that you only love someone if you sacrifice your salary for a month or two to buy a ring. We can keep that concept (because that'll be tough to change) but shift the object: Somehow we want to make all that kind of stuff look morally disgusting, i.e. private jets with CO2 emissions that help kill the planet and people with floods and fires, and rich snobs spending money on pearls when they could be donating to charity. Another 2008 crisis which will happen like clockwork would be a great wave to surf for getting momentum behind the idea. More homeless middle class and rich bankers will make people angry. The idea is to make luxury and opulence (but not necessary money) seem bad to the middle class, in the same way as advocating slavery would seem bad. Then the replacement could be a donation to the charity that the receiver of the engagement ring chooses. The ring could be a simple 18ct gold band or gold plated. It could be 3D printed from an unusual material. Doesn't matter that it costs $50 or whatever, it's now just a symbol, it could have imprinted on it the cause that was donated to. The $10M would be spent on seed funding for a company to sell this kind of product, because then it's profits can be reinvested in marketing it further, rather than the "1 superbowl ad" that someone else mentioned in jest.