Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people. At the end of the day, I bet most people on this thread drive, and there is very little else that humans do that does more violence to the environment and to other humans than the use of fossil fuels. It goes far beyond that. If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world.

It's massively hypocritical to single out diamonds amongst all this.

View on HN

You talk about oil and injustice, but there is no reasonable cost effective substitute to oil at the moment, while there are better alternatives to natural diamonds - man made diamonds - which could easily become cheaper too.

> "If you're an American, your comfortable life exists because of the American government's willingness to inflict violence on other people to maintain our status in the world"

There are few alternatives with our current technology, if the american way of life is not to be negotiated, so let's leave that aside. In any case, when north america becomes self sufficient again or even a net exporter of energy, things will change.

OTOH, for diamonds, there does not seems to be any change in sight. They are a massive hypocrisy, with the huge negative externality of fuelling wars and human misery - and they are controlled by a monopolist!

I'm sorry maybe I'm too heartless and an economist in the soul, but I just can't dig this idea. Diamonds are awful in any way I can see them. And I miss my life partner because of this IT WILL BE A GOOD THING: better splitting up early : both the costs and the emotional attachment will be lower.

EDIT: you talk about taking a train, walking, relocating - that's not acceptable for most people; also it will cause them undue burdens. Replacing a shiny rock by a purer shinier rock is possible and simple. It just requires some cultural or legal changes (think bald eagle feathers) which seems already underway.

De Beers isn't a monopolist and hasn't been once since 2000, when key producers in Canada, Australia, Russia, India, etc, started selling diamonds outside the channels.

The negative externality caused by diamonds is tiny in comparison to the ones caused by fossil fuels.

For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective substitutes to reduce oil consumption. I take an electric train to work and walk everywhere else. I own a car, but drive it maybe once a month. People choose to drive, they choose to live in places like Silicon Valley where driving is part of the culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc. We could use a lot less oil if people chose to life in places like New York. But the choice to live a car-centric lifestyle probably won't engender as much vitriol here on HN as the choice to buy a diamond engagement ring, even though in the grand scheme of things it's far more damaging.

    For individuals, there are reasonable, cost-effective 
    substitutes to reduce oil consumption.

That may be true in Europe and the East coast but it is not true for large remote country areas etc. It's certainly not true for where I live -- there are no bus/train routes that can get me to my workplace from my home, and I cannot re-locate because of my financial position. I know of countless others in similarly tied positions with not much freedom of choice.

Sure, but what about all those people who have a choice? Where is the Atlantic article excoriating Silicon Valley and companies like Facebook, Google, etc, for not moving out of the suburban wasteland to a place where it is possible to live a life that causes less violence to the environment?

Absolutely I agree with you there. But you can't just excuse a wrong in one situation by saying that some injustice in some other unrelated situation exists... so there. And anyways, with cars you actually have a purpose... you use it to transport yourself. Sure we're burning fossil fuels, but at least there is some gray area here, there is some room for debate. There's an unquestionable utility there you have to account for -- not so with the ring, as we've discussed in another parent comment.

The Atlantic Cities is all about charting urban geography and lifestyles. They've covered tech private buses many times.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/12/are-silicon... http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/01/silicon-val...

I think you make a really great point here. And although I don't think buying diamonds and burning fossil fuels are equivalent evils, I do strongly believe that you always have a choice. I don't personally make a lot of money--and I have been financially supporting my boyfriend who's been working on a start-up for past last year--but leading a "green" urban lifestyle is extremely important to us. Yes, living in the city tends to be more expensive, but when you account for all the fuel you're not burning by not driving, it makes the lifestyle much more financially viable. We bike or walk absolutely everywhere we go, and although we don't have the ability to eat out all the time, we've managed to put a good amount of money into savings. My point is, if you're committed enough, there is ALWAYS a choice not to drive, not to buy diamonds, and to live a life that doesn't support things that hurt the environment and other people.

I'm starting to think you work for De Beers...

People choose to drive, they choose to live in places like Silicon Valley where driving is part of the culture, they choose to live in suburbs, etc.

Not in the USA.

Building anything other than car-dependent sprawl is illegal in the USA. The few areas grandfathered in before New Deal laws and regulations in the 1930s are expensive for their scarcity. It's a major driver of NY and SF real estate prices that you're not allowed to build anything like them anywhere in the USA.

And if you do move to NY or SF, you're not doing the environment any good. You just displaced someone else out of the city into car-dependent sprawl. The only way to use quality and efficient urbanism to improve the environment is to build more of it and no demand or price increase will do that because, as I mentioned, it's illegal.

I recommend "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Dr. Shoup, and "The Geography of Nowhere" by Kunstler if you want to understand more.

SF is still pretty car-dependent

Just look at this thread for a litany of other examples for why buying diamonds is a bad idea, independently of the moral issues. It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to point to the low-hanging fruit first (i.e. the stuff that is worth changing on its own merits), when talking about actions with moral implications. "Stop being an American" or "Stop using oil, or any oil product/by-product [I don't own a car but I'm under no illusions that a massive amount of my day-to-day depends on oil]" are a hell of a lot harder to do than "Stop buying diamonds, which by the way makes sense for any of a number of other relatively selfish reasons".

I am all for saying living car free in dense urban environments and relying on self powered transit or public transit. But the lifestyle change there is pretty dramatic for most people compared to a conventional car dependent suburban lifestyle.

Comparatively, there is basically no lifestyle difference required to wear a ring without a diamond.

Many people doing other stupid and wasteful things is a poor justification to do any particular stupid and wasteful thing.

It's massively hypocritical to single out diamonds amongst all this.

No it's not. Diamonds are far more optional than fuel. And tackling small problems does not need to be put off just because you haven't tackled a larger on yet. Faulty logic.

Its' really hard to live life stepping on eggshells worrying about injustices to other people.

It's also really fulfilling. Just don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Hard things shouldn't remain undone, nor should they be forgotten.

You're trying to handwave over the fact that you're accepting something instead of dealing with it temporarily.

And if you're doing that, you've already lost, you just haven't admitted it to yourself.

Don't you get it? Here, right here and right now, is where we're having a conversation about what we want to value. And you're on the side that says we should still value it, and trying to excuse yourself by saying we're not having all of the other conversations.

But we are. Just not here.

The US does bad things so I can justify supporting child exploitation? Adoption is a bad choice for smart parents? Man, are you for real?

1) I can guarantee you oil extraction from places like Nigeria isn't free of child exploitation, but I bet you continue to make the lifestyle choice of driving.

2) I didn't say adoption is bad for smart parents I said its not equivalent to having children of your own for smart parents. There aren't exactly a ton of children of high IQ couples in the adoption market. My bother in law is adopted and he is a doll and adoption is great. But it's not completely equivalent to having your own kids.

1) That is very obviously and intentionally not a response to what I asked. I barely, barely drive as it is. I commute to work, I'm within biking distance of my grocery store. Besides, transportation is sort of essential in the United States to commute and buy food. A diamond has none of that utility. None at all. The fact that you compare them, use it to justify any sort of exploitation is incredible.

2) I should've let it go, I have no desire to argue to have an irrelevant discussion about adoption that already offends my sensibilities.

I'm not really trying to single "you" out, FWIW. I'm using a generic "you" at a website full of people who likely choose to drive around in the suburban wasteland that is Silicon Valley, who likely work in an industry that repopularized the sprawling suburban office park, and the hypocrisy of their complaining about how other peoples' lifestyle choices are hurting people in Africa.

Look, I don't care that you can assert that we're hypocritical. My honest response is "Duh."

I care that when the lens is focused on you, the only defense you have is that you're just as bad as the rest of us.

It's completely non-inspirational and devoid of the idea that we should try to be better.

It's as empty as the diamonds you're defending.

He's not defending diamonds at all.

He's pointing out that you have a relatively weak argument to be standing on if you are going to get outraged over how evil diamond are, then continue to happily consume dozens of other "evil" products in your everyday life. The only reason these other "evil" products are being brushed under the table is they are much harder for you to do without day to day than a diamond.

>He's not defending diamonds at all.

This is utter failure.

Do you think I'm not outraged at all the other things we see?

It absolutely _infuriates_ me that you expect me _not_ to be outraged at something because I should be _more_ outraged at _everything_.

It's _so useless_. It's _so dysfunctional_.

Believe me, my outrage is very _active_ and directed towards things outside this conversation.

In this conversation, though, it just seems to me that... there's just nothing ambiguous! Diamonds are awful. They're just awful.

And if that means I'm firing on a hair-trigger, well... so be it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com