6 ms·
I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness to
by guylhem 14y ago
I see people talking about various things like the (1) (2) (3) arguments for a women to evaluate a man : (1) is the ability to provide; 2) is the willingness to forgo other things (opportunity costs to talk economics) (3) "is demonstrating to the woman's peers her husband's social standing." (signalling)
Raynier posted this deep down in a reply which might be lost to you if you don't read all the comments. It would be a shame to miss it. Read it, along with the reasoning where he says such criterias would be perfectly valid for his own daughter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5404423
It seems perfectly valid, yet I could not disagree more. We are forgetting a important (4) : you fund atrocious wars and dictatorships. That's a strong negative externality.
When you see a diamonds, instead of seeing a shiny rock, you should see part of a human soul instead, a fraction of a person who died in vain for this worthless piece of rock you want for your wives or daughters to "sustain the tradition".
If social convention required 1 pound of flesh taken by the knife on a living human, would you insist on it, for the sake of the tradition? (I fear many would - after all, it matches the 1,2,3 requirements)
If social convention requires a diamond, which you know very well will cause war, death and misery, and if you did not say yes to the previous question, why are you insisting on it?
It strikes me as illogical, inconsistent. Either you believe that human life is more important than tradition, or you don't. I can understand diverging opinions, I can hardly understand inconsistency in a system of belief, so I'm very sad to see intelligent replies advocating this 1,2,3 argument while missing the huge downside #4 is.
Maybe someday the sale of things containing "natural diamonds" will be banned - just like the sale of things containing bald eagles feathers.
IHMO, it should: as much as I love the market and freedom, sometimes externalities are just too big to be ignored - especially when there is also a monopolist in action, and perfect substitutes like man made diamonds.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 14y agoIts' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world. It's massively hypocritical to single out diamonds amongst all this.
- guylhem 14y agoYou talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too. > "If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world" There are few alternatives with our current technology, if the american way of life is not to be negotiated, so let's leave that aside. In any case, when north america becomes self sufficient again or even a net exporter of energy, things will change. OTOH, for diamonds, there does not seems to be any change in sight. They are a massive hypocrisy, with the huge negative externality of fuelling wars and human misery - and they are controlled by a monopolist! I'm sorry maybe I'm too heartless and an economist in the soul, but I just can't dig this idea. Diamonds are awful in any way I can see them. And I miss my life partner because of this IT WILL BE A GOOD THING: better splitting up early : both the costs and the emotional attachment will be lower. EDIT: you talk about taking a train, walking, relocating - that's not acceptable for most people; also it will cause them undue burdens. Replacing a shiny rock by a purer shinier rock is possible and simple. It just requires some cultural or legal changes (think bald eagle feathers) which seems already underway.
- rayiner 14y agoDe Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds outside the channels. The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels. For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere else. I own a car, but drive it maybe once a month. People choose to drive, they choose to live in places like Silicon Valley where driving is part of the culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc. We could use a lot less oil if people chose to life in places like New York. But the choice to live a car-centric lifestyle probably won't engender as much vitriol here on HN as the choice to buy a diamond engagement ring, even though in the grand scheme of things it's far more damaging.
- pikewood 14y agoWhen I was buying an engagement ring, the idea of "conflict-free" diamonds was starting to gain popularity. But now, after reading OP's article, I wonder--was this mainly marketing to persuade me to buy from a mine that was cooperating with the cartel? Did movies like Blood Diamond appear because paying for Leonardo DiCaprio's salary was the easiest way to get people to buy diamonds they could control?
- robryan 14y agoSocial convention is powerful, I don't think people would currently give 4 much consideration unless there is an accompanying societal backlash. It does turn quickly though, if there was enough anger at diamond companies built up the diamond ring may quickly become a negative signal.
- sliverstorm 14y agoIt strikes me as illogical, inconsistent. Inconsistent with what? Only with the position you have projected on your readers. You can't say to your readers, "I assume you believe this. Therefore, you are illogical and inconsistent". That is illogical.
- Nursie 14y agoIf you absolutely, positively have to give her a gift that guarantees someone died to get it to you, diamonds or cocaine are the way to go!