It shows how the concept of diamond engagement rings were completely invented by a specific ad campaign; first in America and now expanding to the rest of the world.
They were specifically trying to create social pressure to buy the most expensive ring possible; to reinforce the impression that a diamond ring demonstrated wealth and ability to take care of a spouse; and even set the three months salary purchase price target most people reference.
If there's ever been a greater con so openly and deliberately imposed on society, I can't think of one off the top my head.
It is like getting a luxury brand car or a watch or living in a certain part of town. All aren't practical.
When social pressure is already there, you are asking the female partner to break the norm which can be tough.
When you go to buy a ring they even ask you how much you make some of the time. It's not so much a signaling mechanism, as companies trying to bleed as much as you can possibly afford out of you.
Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I know to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless.
People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise.
If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is impossible to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.
Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.
Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal.
You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is only useful as a signal.
There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away.
Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.
No, we try to make the case for the waste and stupidity, and when a group still can not come to terms with it, we shame them.
If something external, such as an expensive ring, is to keep the relationship afloat, I have hard time seeing a point of living and sharing your life with someone.
Why do you propose? Why do you say "I love you"? They are all signal.
I'm anti diamond and your pleas to come up with another useless signal fall on deaf ears - this manufactured need for the signal itself is something we should be fighting as we progress.
For a start it's pretty damned sexist and regressive
I think the 'reason' is a rationalisation and not hard and fast, it's also culture-specific so hardly transcendent. That's why I take issue with the idea of replacing one signal with the other - the worth of tge signal is entirely subjective and the signal itself is rather out of place in the modern world.
I'm just pointing out that the basis of this signalling behaviour (if it is as described) is somewhat sexist and regressive - it makes assumptions about the man being the provider and the woman being kept.
Diamonds are indeed all about signalling. Enjoy yourself doing that. Some of us will be laughing at you behind your back for falling for the con though.
As far as I can tell they're only on the way out with bleeding-edge progressives.
A demographic known for their immunity to costly signalling behaviors.