Diamonds aren't popular because they have any real value. No one actually believes they do. They cost a lot and are an easily worn, thus making them perfect for their favorite hobby: making other women feel inadequate. Even women who are positively liberal on such matters are drawn to the idea of forcing their husbands to show such monetary devotion.

The issue here isn't the scarcity of diamonds. It's the scarcity if women.

I realize how chauvinistic this rant sounds, but truly, I would rather give equivalent money to my fiancee's charity of choice than to these diamond shilling scumbags.

Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations, charge $5000 for them, and at least give men an option in the matter.

What makes you think women, as a whole entire gender of people, enjoy making other people feel inadequate?

Perhaps if she's going to wear a ring for the rest of her life, she wants it to be a nice ring that is color neutral. Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

It's a very common human vice, to want to feel competitively superior to one's peers. Fancy cars, jewelry, designer clothes, you name it--these industries depend on the urge to make others jealous.

Cubic zirconia or other gems might be cosmetically identical to a diamond. Wanting a $30K ring for its "color neutral" characteristics smacks of astroturfing.

> It's a very common human vice, to want to feel competitively superior to one's peers.

And to be clear, it's not exactly as if women are the only ones who have this vice. Women are just the ones likely to receive engagement rings.

It's relevant not simply to "an entire gender", but to the whole world of people, primates and most other animals.

It's because social status by definition is a zero-sum game. For status symbols, the absolute value is irrelevant; but what matters is the value relative to your peers.

+1 for social status as zero-sum game. Imagine your social status if you jumped back 2,000 years and could still conduct your current lifestyle: being able to feed yourself for a week from only a fews hours of labour; travel across the Atlantic in a 8 hours at the cost of one weeks labour; access all human knowledge in seconds at near zero cost.

> Perhaps if she's going to wear a ring for the rest of her life, she wants it to be a nice ring that is color neutral.

So CZ then? That saves money for the point below.

> Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

You mean like having kids?

> Perhaps she doesn't want something cheap and easily replaceable acting as a symbol for your marriage.

i.e. she cares more about symbols than about the real thing.

There are a great many couples in my social circle who eschewed the diamond ring. They have meaningful, and expensive alternative rings, but not diamonds. We don't have diamonds either.

My only point is that not ALL women are about making other women feel inadequate. Or showing off their diamonds. Many are actually just as disgusted as men are about it. And they prefer men who have that conscious, and will put some thought into an alternative.

However... Your last suggestion, I grant you, has merit.

> They have meaningful, and expensive alternative rings, but not diamonds.

How is that any different?

One is showing off with how much money you can spend, the other one is showing off with "how much you care".

Or, maybe they actually care ..

The comment "making other women feel inadequate" is chauvinistic and generalizing...but at least you acknowledge it...

My wife and I eschewed engagement rings or expensive wedding rings (her's was a little pricey, but from an artisan jeweler, but not a lot of bling), instead we opted for spending the money on property (not our main residence). At the least, despite ups and downs here in the states, it has held it's value.

Charities or other personal investments really are a better option than the bling. That said, some people like the material status comparison.

"Charities or other personal investments really are a better option than the bling. "

How do you put charities on the same level as personal investments?

If you make an investment you have something that theoretically might increase in value (as your example "spending money on property"). If you give it to charity you feel good but that's not something that's not something you can retire on or insure the financial well being of your family (or pay for your children's college).

I lump them in the "not throwing money away" bucket.

Yes, one is giving to others, one is giving to the couple. My point was, don't throw the money away on baubles.

>Charities, if you're listening, here's an idea: create uniquely identified jewelry (bracelets, necklaces) marketed as devotional donations

This is actually a very interesting idea. It has I guess a few complications--are we comfortable with making generosity a commodity? I'm not at all, actually--but at the very least it would be preferable to diamond rings.

It's been done: Pink products to support breast cancer research, PRODUCT (RED) for combating AIDS in Africa.

Eh, point. And witness discomfort about making generosity a commodity.

Just needs the right marketing behind it to nullify that. Sell these pieces of charity jewelry to the public as not only ways to flaunt your wealth, as diamonds are, but also a way to flaunt your moral superiority.

Forgive me if I don't trust _marketing_, of all facets of society, to nullify that.

As much as I think it'd be a great alternative to diamonds, my feelings on the matter have quickly been drawn to the same cynicism about diamonds.

It's a problem that we want to flaunt our wealth, _however_ we do it. It's the root problem.

The diamond industry is flawed because it's acting exactly as desired: to fulfill our need for vacuous display.

And flaunting your moral superiority? Well, that's not as bad as flaunting your wealth, but only because it's less practical. People notice and _hate_ when you're morally superior.

Isn't that a sad commentary? That when bragging about morals is more easily attacked than bragging about wealth?

There's something interesting in how when the social drive to appear wealthy approaches appearing moral, it is diluted and weakened. Just mere contact with the idea of morality is enough to lose our respect for the egregious use of wealth.

It's a peacock's tail. In any environment where resources are abundant and there's no natural predators, species evolve to create lavish displays for sexual selection.

Buying a ring, having a fancy sports car, owning a nice house, coming from a prestigious university... these are signals for sexual reproduction. "Look at me, look at what I can afford to do!"

It does signal financial irresponsibility. Who can demonstrate such a thing? Those who are actually financially secure. But then it gets to be backwards, as those who can barely afford to live paycheck to paycheck seek out these red herrings, these peacock's tails, before actual wealth and stability.

Same thing with ties. Those used to be signals of wealth. They evolved from the cravate, used by nobility to protect their shirts whilst eating. Being wealthy, these embryonic ties, the cravates, would be made of expensive materials. When those who weren't so wealthy got ahold of them and started using them as a display, it became backwards.

We now take off our ties, or toss them over our shirts to protect from getting dirty when we eat, because they're often quite expensive!

So, yeah. Diamonds signal financial security by being financially irresponsible. We're a species evolved to pay attention to status, to these symbols more so than the real value behind such things.

> I doubt the point is to demonstrate financial security: Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security

"Wasting" resources is one of the ways to make sure that the signal (of fitness -- financial security for example) is honest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

The wiki entry you posted mentions this, but it is interesting and related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

"Spending three months' salary on a single ring would seem to indicate financial irresponsibility more than financial security"

Not if you have assets that are considerably greater (have accumulated) than whatever your "salary" is.

I don't think anyone's discussing the independently wealthy.

Someone thinking it's utter bollocks but doing it anyway somewhat demonstrates that a partner is worth even more to them. ;)