[dirtdobber]

Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one.

Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.

If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)

I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.

[hungie]

Why though. Like, genuinely, why bother with the mined ones?

"This diamond caused untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire, and that makes it rare and valuable." It's just a weird flex at this point. It marks you out as someone who doesn't care about the wellbeing of others.

But every time someone gets excited about natural diamonds they try to justify that synthetic ones just aren't the same. I think that also says a lot.

[red-iron-pine]

> Why though. Like, genuinely, why bother with the mined ones?

as someone else said, "Veblen goods"

[dirtdobber]

> "This diamond caused untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire."

Dude, the copper in your phone required untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire.

You want to profess some grand moral judgement about purchasing mined minerals, but I guarantee all of that moral judgment goes out the door when it comes to products that you can afford and want to buy.

[viridian]

Are you arguing for a nihilistic worldview where one should abstain from caring about suffering and exploitation, or just calling OP a probable hypocrite? If the latter, what position do you take that isn't hypocritical?

[dirtdobber]

It's pretty clear, no?

Are you asking me for a non-hypocritical position on the diamond market? My position is simply that natural diamonds are a luxury item. Claiming that there's suffering involved in obtaining natural diamonds and therefore you should only purchase synthetic (non-luxury) diamonds, is a view that is inconsistent with the way most people live. Otherwise, we'd all stop buying clothes, shoes, cell phones, coffee, etc. Essentially every product you use, unless you take extreme care, involves human trafficking at some point in the supply chain.

[viridian]

Thanks for clarifying. I think this is a degenerate, self-defeating way to view your relationship to the purchases you make.

By stripping away any agency you may have and shifting both blame and responsibility onto the market, government, or other amoral greater power, you shrink yourself. You are capable of agency, even if some acts are harder than others.

In between the absolute poles of absolute moral asceticism and nihilistic indifference to suffering, is a massive spectrum. On that spectrum, blood diamonds are a very, very low hanging fruit for anyone seeking to demonstrate even the smallest shred of moral agency.

A few reasons this is so easy:

1) An alternative product exists, and is cheaper than the one produced by forced labor. You save money by not paying extra for suffering.

2) The purchase is infrequent. Unlike food or clothing, you aren't constantly required to buy more of it and thus have to research suppliers and production practices over and over.

3) The quality of the alternative is as high or higher. Unlike with any number of technology products where you are cajoled by unique feature sets and a higher level of polish that comes part and parcel with grinding through humans, lab diamonds do the main things a diamond does as well or better than the alternative. They reflect, refract, scratch, and cleave exactly as one wants them to.

[dirtdobber]

Or, get this, I can buy a natural diamond that was ethically sourced.

[hungie]

Just because we accept it in one place doesn't mean we should blanket accept it everywhere. This isn't some inductive proof of human suffering where we can just k+1 cases where people do bad things.

Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering.

Start a post about copper mining if you want to discuss copper mining. We're talking diamonds here, which have a demonstrable human cost.

[dirtdobber]

> Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was not that there's not human suffering in the diamond industry, nor that it isn't bad. My point is that you, a person that cannot afford expensive natural diamonds (speaking statistically here, I don't know you personally), probably should not cast moral judgments on others that can and do purchase expensive natural diamonds. This is due to the fact that you, a person that can afford a cell phone, chooses to purchase a cell phone, despite that industry experiencing similar levels of human suffering. Therefore, I am forced to believe that in the counterfactual world where you can afford expensive diamonds, you would buy them.

[plokiju]

In the case of diamonds, you have the choice of buying the exact same product with human suffering involved, or without. If there were a lab-grown iPhone on the market, of course I would choose it

[dirtdobber]

https://shop.fairphone.com/fairphone-5

Or, is some level of human suffering ok for you to have the luxury of using an iPhone?

[hungie]

I make approximately 750k/year. I can afford diamonds. I choose not to buy them because they are a symbol of accepting human suffering for my luxury.

[Workaccount2]

>I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it

What you likely to consider "trying to justify it" is more likely "trying to let someone know they are delusional."

"My synthetic diamond is functionally identical, if not even better than your mined one" is factually true and not a justification...

[dirtdobber]

> "My synthetic diamond is functionally identical, if not even better than your mined one" is factually true and not a justification...

Except they're not functionally identical. Natural diamonds function in society as a luxury item. Synthetic diamonds have always functioned as a utility item (used in chainsaw blades, for example). Synthetic diamonds certainly do not function as a luxury item and they're not marketed to people with money.

Look, I have no problem with synthetic diamonds in the same way that I have no problem with reprints of Salvador Dali paintings. But, the market for original Salvador Dali paintings is very different than the market for reprints even though they might appear "functionally identical."

[plokiju]

Maybe for now. But I think there's a good chance the market for diamonds goes the same way as the former status symbols that became common, like purple dye[1], or pineapples[2]

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c05ako/...

[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-53432877

[unusualmonkey]

I find it ironic that you decided to try to justify natural diamonds... just to say that synthetic diamond purchasers always try to justify it.

Pot, Kettle and all that. With probably a large helping of selection bias.

[dirtdobber]

Wrong, read again. No justification for buying natural diamonds. Just stating the facts: current market dynamics make the distinction that natural diamonds are a luxury product while synthetic diamonds are not. I clearly stated that people should buy natural vs synthetic based on those market dynamics and their own personal preferences.