Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

scmp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 314 posts

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#221

Post by jacobolus »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #195
hdkrgr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More on the latter point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel The same effect was also used in understanding brain development by looking at Carbon isotopes in brains of people born before WW2 to determine which cells were formed when.

That's fascinating to me, I didn't realize anthropogenic radiation levels were significant enough to offer a control for molecular examination of human brains in the general population. It's almost a bit unnerving.

It’s not “radiation levels” per se. Nuclear bomb testing in the mid 20th century dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which has subsequently been gradually declining. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14#Origin

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#222

Post by caconym_ »

nvarsj wrote: post #152
Jedd wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly a key indicator of a quality SF idea / author -- how much closer we are to their universe a decade or two later. I've loved everything Neal's written, though I may begrudgingly agree with various critics that suggest he really doesn't do endings very well (REAMDE and Anathem are much, much better on this front). I've tried recommending various books of his to different friends, and I've concluded that I have…

I would suggest checking out Dan Simmons. He's like Neal in many ways (lots of world building, interesting scifi), but I think a better writer and story teller. I picked up Hyperion based on a review of Seveneves, which suggested the third part was a pale imitation. It and Ilium are amazing.

+1 for Dan Simmons and especially Hyperion. It is more what I'd call "science fantasy" in my personal classification system, but it's an amazing book, in my top 5 for sure.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#223

Post by lostlogin »

mtgx wrote: post #14
moccachino wrote: post #5

From the article: >The arrival of lab-grown diamonds has challenged the widely-held assumption that diamond prices could only go up I'll admit I don't know a lot about the diamond market and perhaps I'm misinformed, but how on earth was this a widely held assumption? In a world where people are increasingly aware that De Beers and other companies hold major stockpiles of diamonds solely to keep the price inflated, an…

Maybe one day people will also realize that diamonds or other gems have "no intrinsic value", at least when used as jewelry. I know, crazy, right?

Diamond blades on my grinder are great, and there is definite value in their hardness. If I could get nicer looking ones with good clarity it would make cutting rebar and grinding steel prettier.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#225

Post by dsacco »

vanderZwan wrote: post #189
dsacco wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Of course, you can productively criticize the entire luxury industry, sure, I don’t disagree with that. More to the point, what exactly is the fallacy? That the “real” products are better? They are…

> “Productive” here means that there is no distinguishing feature of the diamond industry in particular with respect to the luxury industry. In other words, the criticism of the diamond industry is not productively precise. Oh really? And you did not think of explaining this completely non-standard usage of the word "productive" until now? Who is not being "productively precise" in their argumentation here? I'm done…

> I'm done with this debate. Your style of discussion is basically building up a giant Rube Goldberg machine of words for something that is extremely simple at the core, which is turning it into an endurance run of who can keep up with the walls of text the longest. That is neither convincing, nor respectful of the person you are debating with to.

Sorry, that wasn’t my intention. But respectfully, I disagree. I don’t think this topic is at all simple, and I find nuance to be a helpful perspective.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#227

Post by dsacco »

ryandrake wrote: post #154
dsacco wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. What you’re calling “emotional baggage” is a subjective preference for some things over other things. It’s only doublespeak if you subscribe to a literalist form…

> You’re taking away a lot of agency from people who prefer natural diamonds. Yes, of course their marketing campaign set off the industry, but the reason it worked is because many people are already predisposed to prefer natural things over artificial things. Predisposed is a pretty strong word. Do you think people are born with a preference for “natural” diamonds? I happen to believe that most preferences you hold…

No, many people are predisposed to like luxury items due to instilled cultural values, not because of an innate utility. But that was part of my point: to honestly criticize the diamond industry, we should criticize the entire market of veblen goods in general.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#228

Post by ancap »

ameister14 wrote: post #205
ancap wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think in a lot of cases buyers should or would demand transparency (ie. has this house ever been flooded?), but I don't think it's a strict requirement in the broad sense you may be implying. Transparency can be subjective. For example, a person sells 100 shares of ACME stock to a savvy buyer. A short time later the stock triples in value, and the seller sues the buyer because they were not "completely…

I was talking about market transparency; it's more like the person selling the shares sells them to one person at a discount and another person at a high price. For a free market to function, the buyer would need to know the other prices people have paid for the same goods. If you don't have that, a free market can't work well. When you buy something in a free market, you should know its quality, characteristics and…

>...That's transparency

The criteria you specify for transparency is subjective and I don't agree that all of those criteria are strictly necessary. Specifically, I don't agree that knowledge of "provenance, relative supply and transport/marketing cost" is required of a buyer at all in a free market, though they may personally have an interest in those things. I would venture that most consumers know and care very little about those things.

>If you don't have that, a free market can't work well.

>which is why it's fundamental for a free market

What's important is the principle of subjective value--that the buyer and the seller value what they are getting more than what they are giving up--and that can happen without the various criteria of transparency you outline. Certainly there are cases where market actors will demand some of those (and many cases they will not), but I wouldn't state it's a foundational requirement the market must be built upon.

Re: Lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems

#230

Post by grecy »

saagarjha wrote: post #3

> De Beers fights fakes with technology as China’s lab-grown diamonds threaten viability of the real gems From what I understand, these gems are actually better than natural ones, since they're 100% pure. Maybe it's time to call lab-grown diamonds "real" and mined ones "fake".

For any other resource on earth we would be rejoicing that a new "cost saving" way of making something had been discovered!

The Diamond cartel has done a lot of PR spin to say these new ones "threaten viability..."

The world is literally run by PR and marketing.

Post reply on HN