Live data from Hacker News

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

money.cnn.com

91–100 of 455 posts

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#91
Can someone summarize the progress in synthetic diamond research for the past two decades?

From mid-90s to early 00s I remember the diamond hype, from Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age, to the practical refinement of making cost-effective synthetic gem quality diamonds, high-frequency heat-dissipating semiconductor wafers, and speculation of biocompatible nanotechnology such as respirocytes.

What problems were encountered with scaling, energy efficiency, cost, and competitor materials? Are they still applicable technologies working their way through the R&D pipeline?

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#92

Interestingly enough, this starts to bring up questions that have previously only been super active in science fiction circles, particularly, Star Trek: If you can perfectly recreate something down to the molecular level, what actually has value? (Assuming, someday, that synthetic versions are excessively cheap, in Star Trek's case.) If you can replicate cooked food perfectly, will people still claim that "real" food…

the authentic story matters. http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2018/05/putting-a-va...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#93
post #66
post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

Very reminiscient of the intentional devaluation of Crystal Pepsi by Tab Clear (see the second paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab_Clear#Post-discontinuation )

More like Hedging, either way Sergio Zyman looks like a genius:

Doesn't stick = Intentional devaluation Sticks = Brilliant capitalization of the market.

Tab back then was far more popular than today. It was at today's level of Dr. Pepper.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#94
This is interesting in light of pretty much everybody's agreement that economically recoverable gem diamond reserves have mostly been found and production of naturals will plateau around 2020, followed by an irrevocable decline. [1]

I think De Beers is looking at a revenue/margin maximization endgame. I wouldn't be surprised to see Anglo American sell De Beers off within a couple of years.

And the price of synthetics compared to equivalent quality/weight naturals will continue to fall. Synthetic/natural prices are now ~70%, whereas a little over a year ago, they were ~90%. Hydrogen, methane and microwaves are much cheaper than titanic mines.

[1] https://www.economist.com/international/2017/02/25/a-report-...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#95
post #33

De Beers hasn't admitted defeat. They've pivoted strategies. "De Beers launched a new jewelry brand on Tuesday [...] The brand, called Lightbox [...] will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now," Genius attack from marketing.

So the position is, it's not a shiny rock with natural scarcity and artificial inflated value because we hoard all the diamonds... but instead, a shiny rock with artificial scarcity and value because we hoard all the laboratories and control price.

I fear the publishing and journal industries will stick around for another 100 years, just like De Beers has done to the diamond industry. We'll still be in the same crappy predicament in 2118 asking how we got to this point where a few publishers control all the world's flow of knowledge, and the answer will be something to the tune of "because people still like paying high prices for shiny rocks"

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smart move. Throw enough marketing dollars at misinformation and you can convince hordes of people to doubt facts. Case in point. Despite overwhelming evidence there are people today who still debate climate change.

Or the staggering number of anti-GMO laws and business ad campaigns.

GMO are a very powerful technology.

Like anything powerful, an intelligent person calls for caution.

A lot of people are worrying about GMO in food because we don't have enough data about them. We are changing things that could have important biological, health and ecological impacts, but the companies producing them are not willing to test them extensively for safety during 20 years before selling them.

We don't know what are the long term effects of cross breeding the GMO species with non GMO ones. We don't know the long term effects of the fauna. We don't known the long term (on decades) effects of ingesting any of them.

What we know is that if you give mouses the GMO food in isolation for a short time, they don't develop apparent problems. That's not a lot to go on, especially since very simple products, like processed meat, revealed themself as being carcinogenous on the long run (http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/).

That's not science to me. That's business as usual.

I don't trust business. History taught me that for profit entities don't make the right decisions on this. After all, we knew asbestos was dangerous in 1920, but had to wait 1980 to act on it. After all, we fed cows with meat while knowing it's an herbivore, leading to spongiform encephalopathy. After all, we used the least safe nuclear technology we knew about because it was more suited for our military ambitions.

On a technology as complex as GMO, with a lot of interactions in different systems, it can take a lot of time to realize something is wrong. If it happens, it will take even more time before we act. The companies creating GMO will then, as usual, protect them-self to the extreme, and eventually just pay some money to get out of trouble, money they already earned by selling the GMO anyway.

So yes, whether it's GMO in food, nano-particles or anything that is very potent, I think it's fair to say "hey, slow down, we are not doing our homework here" when the other side is just trying to sell it to everybody.

It's a matter of agenda.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#97
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily hate all GMO but I'm very dubious about GMO crops that are engineered to withstand Glyphosate better and I prefer not to eat such crops because they are more likely to have been treated with this herbicide.

Why do you have that preference? It's my understanding that the alternatives are worse.

Organic food is worse than food wich was treated with various chemicals to kill living things?

Thats news to me.

But you probably mean "alternatives" for producing dirt cheap. Then yes, there are much worse substances around. Doesn't make it good, though.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#98
THIS IS NOT ABOUT MAN-MADE DIAMONDS!

Read this article: https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/05/29/de-beers-to-sell...

Read the last paragraph:

The move also comes at a sensitive time for De Beers and its relationship with Botswana, the source of three-quarters of its diamonds. The two have a sales agreement that gives De Beers the right to market and sell the diamonds from Botswana. The deal, which gives De Beers its power over global prices, will soon be up for negotiation and Botswana is likely to push for more concessions.

So this is not about man-made diamonds; it's a negotiating tactic! They'll use this move to pressure Botswana to accept weaker conditions and less money.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#99
post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

I think that "may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" is not about the stone, but about the attitude of the giver and receiver. But experience doesn't support an association of diamonds with relationship stability.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#100
post #45
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educated people who hate GMO are instant signal that they don’t understand science. A good filter

Right, don't forget about people who are opposed to nuclear because of Fukushima. A good filter of people who don't understand science and how safe the nuclear industry is.

I'm pro nuclear, but given that the side effects on the oceans and hence the entire planet are still to be accounted for and that we won't know before decades, I find that comment quite arrogant.

It's also discarding the real suffering of all the people that were affected by the 3 major nuclear accidents. I have a friend of mine who his medicated for life because of Chernobyl.

Black and white are rarely the winning colors.

Post reply on HN