Looking forward to the YC-backed diamond company that produces indistinguishable lab-grown diamonds.
Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
251–260 of 314 posts
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#252I'm hoping for someone to develop cheap synthetic ivory that is indistinguishable from natural ivory.
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this statement, they could not mine iron ores but could gold ones?
Mining the ore isn't the problem. Extraction is. Gold is native gold, so easy to seperate. Iron requires clever furnaces and processing to produce, and it's not until recently we could make mild steel consistently.
Iron extraction is not very high tech after one has the know-how. But it took time to develop the knowledge.
https://primitivetechnology.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/forge-b...
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iron was more expensive than gold at the dawn of the iron age. The only way humans obtained iron was from meteorites.
And FYI where I just heard that this week was in "The Podcast History of Our World", which is totally awesome. In one of the three "The New Kingdom" episodes.
Sounds interesting. Thanks!
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#255Excellent news all around.
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#256I'm hoping for someone to develop cheap synthetic ivory that is indistinguishable from natural ivory.
I like it. Let's do shark fins while we're at it.
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
syn·di·cate noun noun: syndicate; plural noun: syndicates ˈsindikət/ 1. a group of individuals or organizations combined to promote some common interest.
Of course the literal meaning of it isn't bad, but the connotation is pretty negative. Although perhaps it isn't there, it could just be the English translation that "sounds" that way.
Yeah, it's been used for "crime syndicate" for a while.
But we call them organized crime. So shouldn't calling something an organized be negative as well?
My goal for my Syndicate is like the old video game. Good times!
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#258I'm hoping for someone to develop cheap synthetic ivory that is indistinguishable from natural ivory.
People are working on it:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/faking-elephan...
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#259Good! ... The DeBeers cartel is monopolistic and exploitative. There's an interesting article that talks about how they initially created demand for diamonds as they weren't commonly associated with an engagement. I'm glad to hear there's a competitor that should at a minimum lead to a price correction.
In the USA, people don’t primarily buy diamonds for their looks or physical properties, but as a signal to a significant other that they are willing to invest in a relationship. ⇒ If there is a large price correction, something else will replace diamonds (what that something will be is anybody’s guess) De Beers knows that, but wants to stay in the game, so they market “made by nature” as a pre of ‘real’ diamonds.
If the actual marriage itself wasn't enough of a commitment, I don't know what the stone says! My wife's engagement ring is a sapphire, and I later realized that her mother and grandmother also had sapphire rings. My wedding ring is $20 from Amazon. Good riddance, diamond jewelry industry!
Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the gp's analogy of natural water is better than the luxury good you suggested because the underlying distinction is a choice between something naturally occuring vs man-made.
I disagree. Gold is clearly a luxury item despite being natural. More importantly, diamonds are luxury goods, for better or worse, which means they wouldn’t adhere to the price dynamics of water.
Not sure what the source of disagreement is, particulary when my comment was merely to agree with the gp's water analogy when s/he asked:
"What makes a diamond "natural"?"
Diamonds are perceived as luxury goods because of the elaborate fiction of artificial scarcity woven around it by De Beers, which you have acknowledged upthread.
Mentioning gold wasn't necessary because alchemy never delivered on a man-made substitute for gold. And it distracts from the core issue, we are here debating the consequences of the Chinese lab's feat for diamond after all.
EDIT: To summarize, I'm not clear on why you think applying a "luxury goods" lens will lead to better insights as to why people prefer "natural/real" over "man-made/fake" substitutes, when the underlying issue is one of perception, which can be shaped by anyone with an agenda and a marketing budget.