Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 bewi…
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.
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.