Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com