Do you remember when fake fur was popular because Americans were repulsed by the disclosure of how minks and other furry animals were being exploited? Marketers came up with a better sounding name: faux fur. The marketing cleverness here was they disguised the idea of fake which normally implies wrong.
When the process of mining diamonds was exposed, we also saw a rapid response when the diamond industry tried to manage the human exploitation … by guaranteeing their diamonds could be traced to responsible miners. The assumption was that the diamond industry could trace individual stones, which they can’t.
It is fascinating to see how quickly artificial diamonds are catching on for the same reasons. Here is an answer to my question whether people are buying fakes because they want to avoid exploitation:
“Yes, synthetic diamonds, also known as lab-grown diamonds, are popular because they are marketed as an ethical alternative to blood diamonds. Lab-grown diamonds are produced in controlled environments, avoiding unethical practices that may be associated with mined diamonds. Mined diamonds may come from areas affected by war crimes, human trafficking, or genocide. Lab-grown diamonds are also sold straight to the consumer or jeweler, without middlemen, which also helps ensure the diamonds are conflict-free.”
So, we seem poised to substitute fakes for what we were once told were precious attributs. Remember the tag line: diamonds are forever? Plus, we were also told that they were precious because they were so expensive to mine and flawless natural ones were truly rare. Perfection was graded. Now we are making perfect fake diamonds but positioning them as superior because we can know for sure no human exploitation was involved.
The diamond industry is built on a fabrication of implications. We bought them when we got married, and the size of the stone became a proxy for how well off the groom was … or in cruel shaming situations, how much the groom loved the bride. I still remember a commercial for diamonds suggesting that I should spend at least as much as I did for my stereo. Funny looking back on it now. A cubic zirconium looks every bit as good.
So, here we are. Fake diamonds are being preferred by an ever-growing portion of our population. What does that say about our value system? This does seem to align with organic vegetables being preferred by many. And, in a strange way, this aligns with our rejection of green carbon credits that are associated with questionable metrics.
The central idea that seems to be emerging is that we want assurances that our purchases are good for us, our communities, and the world at large. That is a hopeful sign.
But, once again, the climate gestapo steps in because they will criticize lab diamond growers because they use about 3 times the energy compared to real diamonds. But, wait a minute, lab grown diamonds only require 250 – 750 kilowatt hours (kWh) to produce a rough carat. Even at $0.20 per kWh, that is at most $150 per stone. Fortunately, lab diamond companies are answering the call by reducing energy consumption and more renewables to make the growing process more energy appealing.
Are we willing in our society to let people choose by only sending price signals, or do we really need to ban this or that to keep people in line? Seems to me that we are afraid of the 18th-century Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith who coined the answer to societal needs as an “invisible hand.” A center finger pointing graphic now seems obvious to me as a visible hand, but that would be politically inappropriate.
It’s sad to see that people need to be kept in line: “or do we really need to ban this or that to keep people in line?”
If the majority believes something should be controlled, that’s one thing. When ideologues simply decide because it fits their agendas, I don’t think so IMHO. Personal choices should be allowed to respond to market forces, just as long as the price signals reflect a balanced perspective.