6 ms·

This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives. As an example, dog breeding

by djsbs 5y ago

This seems like a judgement call from someone who doesn't understand any of the three topics and therefore sees only the negatives. As an example, dog breeding which I know least of the three topics, provided society (the object in your sentence) with very specific work dogs that have served society for centuries. Imagine the Inuit without their sled dogs. Jewelry and luxury cars are easier to justify, but Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?”

f6v 5y ago
1. I'm talking about the society at present. 2. Key part of my argument is “net”.
- djsbs 5y ago
  Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric. So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast: To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!
artfulhippo 5y ago
Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.
- djsbs 5y ago
  What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding. The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl. Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same. Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days. Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior. Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.
  - shituonui 5y ago
    Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      It has. Wristwatch mechanical and material expertise has greatly diffused, resulting in good watches at many price points.
      - shituonui 5y ago
        I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.
        1123581321 5y ago
        For the ones who want a cheap watch that works well and looks good, absolutely.
        djsbs 5y ago
        Again, sarcasm. Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago. Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence. There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.
        shituonui 5y ago
        >They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence. You are getting increasingly metaphysical. These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation. These watches are so rare that they can provide very little beauty. The vast majority of people will never lay eyes on one. Let me ask you a question: would you support the government purchasing Patek Philippe watches and putting them in libraries for the common people to check out? This would lead to much more beauty than letting them sit in rich people's collections and would encourage even more "human excellence". But I suspect you'd find it a waste of tax money.
shituonui 5y ago
>Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?” I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry: 1. Luxury cars are often wasteful or dangerous to be around. 2. The resources for jewelry are scarce and often extracted with slave labor. 3. Both are often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them. I love fast cars and I wear jewelry. I hate the fact that these beautiful things are corrupted by their use as tools of oppression.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- djsbs 5y ago
  1.“I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:” Let me revise, since I have met ppl like OP: Im so bewildered at this attitude that I’ll just ask “what problem do people like you possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?” 2. Jewlery can be made with slave labor. There is nothing inherent in jewelry that it must be made with slave labor. Thus, you can object to a available jewelry or specific jewelry but your objection isn't valid for jewelry generally. This is like objecting to running shoes. De facto they’re made in sweatshops, and available sneakers supports slavery. But nothing inherent in trainers requires slaves. 3. As to the scarcity of resources for jewelry, so what? Thats a moral judgement on your behalf that jewelry is inherently less worthy than, say, an Orthodox icon, or bullion as a hedge against inflation. 4. As to cars, most of your objection appear to be directed at their drivers. How is a VW golf more dangerous than an A3? Only if you assume nastier drivers drive luxury cars. Let me assure you I drive like an utter asshole on my $3000 assessed value car (mea culpa. But I live in the mountains, the car is stick…) Nor does the A3 consume more resources than the Golf to make. 5. As your third objection, I dont agree with your statement: “[…]often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them”. Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean. I think that says more about the feelings of inadequacy that we feel next to a fancy car. Feelings we rationalize by telling ourselves they’re doing it on purpose to spite us. They probably aren't giving you a second’s thought. I think your use of the word “often” is telling. Myself, I’d love to have a luxury car but one criteria would have to be that it is not obvious that it is a luxury car. It follows that luxury cars are not purchased solely to show off (and therefore immoral?) 6. Look, if the OP had objected to cars I wouldn't have bothered to object. Maybe I’d disagree (on the fence on cars), but I can see that an argument can be made that cars, electric or otherwise, are inherently immoral. The statement was just self-righteous EDIT: typos. Writing this on my 5 year old SE

by djsbs 5y ago

f6v 5y ago

1. I'm talking about the society at present. 2. Key part of my argument is “net”.

djsbs 5y ago
Having added a timeline (point 1), I’ll agree - dog breeding today appears to me, a non-expert, barbaric. So, two people on the internet have agreed! Let’s put aside jewelry and luxury and have a virtual toast: To your health, my cyber-interlocutor!

artfulhippo 5y ago

Money spent on luxuries/social status signaling is money not given to reduce suffering. If you have any sense of empathy for the billions of people living with low incomes, it's obvious that luxury spending is resource misallocation.

djsbs 5y ago
What’s obvious is economic misunderstanding. The resources “misallocated” in luxury goods motivate and teach us to make better mass goods. The car industry is a great example. luxury vehicles have driven R&D that have made cars safer and cleaner (disc breaks, fuel injection). Tesla has put electric cars just within reach for all by charging rich people for what were (are?) bad cars with lots of status signing Jewelry is a form of art and of adding beauty to our everyday life. I will not apologize for the $80 pearl studs my girls wear, or my wife’s shawl. Nor is it tenable that money used on a luxury item represent resources taken away from the poor. The resources to make a Lexus or a Toyota are largely the same. Sure, I could buy a Nissan (btw, I drive a six year old Kia and a used base manual 2013 Golf) and send a cheque to Africa. But I’ll raise you - you can drop every expenditure you have except basic needs and send the money to Africa. Like my ethic professor pointed out, that $5 beer is five child-days. Unless you’re willing to live like an African, your position is hypocritical - jealousy masked with self righteousness. Philosophers who feel better than other, richer, people because they’ve explained away their own behavior. Excuse my elitism, but its pop Buddhism with all the vulgarities of pop.
- shituonui 5y ago
  Oh yes, the expertise of Patek Philippe will trickle down any day now.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    It has. Wristwatch mechanical and material expertise has greatly diffused, resulting in good watches at many price points.
    - shituonui 5y ago
      I'm sure that's a real benefit to all the people living paycheck-to-paycheck who wear mechanical watches.
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        For the ones who want a cheap watch that works well and looks good, absolutely.
      - djsbs 5y ago
        Again, sarcasm. Patek Phillipe is 180 years old. “Normal” people used to need mechanical watches to get to work on time until 40 years ago. Anyway, luxury goods don't have to justify themselves (at all) solely on their technological transfer. They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence. There is nothing immoral in a watch that took a year of human hours to build that isn't immoral about Japanese artisanal charcoal.
        shituonui 5y ago
        >They are, PP in particular as opposed to mass produced Rolexes, works of human excellence. You are getting increasingly metaphysical. These watches are built on antiquated technology and, by design, cannot be mass-produced, so clearly they will never lead to technological innovation. These watches are so rare that they can provide very little beauty. The vast majority of people will never lay eyes on one. Let me ask you a question: would you support the government purchasing Patek Philippe watches and putting them in libraries for the common people to check out? This would lead to much more beauty than letting them sit in rich people's collections and would encourage even more "human excellence". But I suspect you'd find it a waste of tax money.

shituonui 5y ago

>Im so bewildered I’ll just ask “what problem you can possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?” I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry: 1. Luxury cars are often wasteful or dangerous to be around. 2. The resources for jewelry are scarce and often extracted with slave labor. 3. Both are often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them. I love fast cars and I wear jewelry. I hate the fact that these beautiful things are corrupted by their use as tools of oppression.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
djsbs 5y ago
1.“I don't believe you. It is pretty obvious someone would object to luxury cars and jewelry:” Let me revise, since I have met ppl like OP: Im so bewildered at this attitude that I’ll just ask “what problem do people like you possibly have with luxury cars and jewelry?” 2. Jewlery can be made with slave labor. There is nothing inherent in jewelry that it must be made with slave labor. Thus, you can object to a available jewelry or specific jewelry but your objection isn't valid for jewelry generally. This is like objecting to running shoes. De facto they’re made in sweatshops, and available sneakers supports slavery. But nothing inherent in trainers requires slaves. 3. As to the scarcity of resources for jewelry, so what? Thats a moral judgement on your behalf that jewelry is inherently less worthy than, say, an Orthodox icon, or bullion as a hedge against inflation. 4. As to cars, most of your objection appear to be directed at their drivers. How is a VW golf more dangerous than an A3? Only if you assume nastier drivers drive luxury cars. Let me assure you I drive like an utter asshole on my $3000 assessed value car (mea culpa. But I live in the mountains, the car is stick…) Nor does the A3 consume more resources than the Golf to make. 5. As your third objection, I dont agree with your statement: “[…]often used as displays of wealth, intended to demean people who can't afford them”. Clearly some ppl buy expensive things to show off, but I dont think it follows that their intention is to demean. I think that says more about the feelings of inadequacy that we feel next to a fancy car. Feelings we rationalize by telling ourselves they’re doing it on purpose to spite us. They probably aren't giving you a second’s thought. I think your use of the word “often” is telling. Myself, I’d love to have a luxury car but one criteria would have to be that it is not obvious that it is a luxury car. It follows that luxury cars are not purchased solely to show off (and therefore immoral?) 6. Look, if the OP had objected to cars I wouldn't have bothered to object. Maybe I’d disagree (on the fence on cars), but I can see that an argument can be made that cars, electric or otherwise, are inherently immoral. The statement was just self-righteous EDIT: typos. Writing this on my 5 year old SE