Experiment Equating value by rarity only is foolish. People should equate value by usefulness and quality.

[Blackcel rigth wing]

If diamonds of all variety were as common as sand. Will you choose a diamond or a rare sapphire gem and why? (Poll^)


Most people tend to a equate value by rarity. I sometimes ask if diamonds or gold were common will they become valueless and will most people will stop desiring them?

Peoples response are usually, yes they will become valueless and people would go for what ever else is rare.

Here’s why I think that’s foolish!

Even if diamonds were super common and sapphire was rare I’ll still choose the diamond. You’ll probably ask why?

The reason why is because a diamond will be of much better quality ( durability, shine, hardness) than a sapphire and diamonds will always have a use, particularly industrial uses. Another example is if gold was super common it will still be insanely valuable because of it’s industrial uses such as conductivity. The difference is we won’t have to try hard to get these resource if they were super common. We’ll be saving time and energy, putting it to other productive uses.

If sapphire was common it will have no use what so ever, it’s value is held up by its rarity alone. I hold value by quality and usefulness, if it becomes common it’s saves time, energy and especially money.

People usually tend to equate value for things by how rare they are instead of quality and usefulness. Usually because the rarity gives them sort of ego boost or status.

The value of something should be based by their quality and usefulness in the physical world(objective) instead stuff going on in the mental world(subjective)

 

[Deleted member 30682]

So you're telling me that if diamonds weren't rare they would still be valuable due to their rare properties?

 

[Blackcel rigth wing]

So you're telling me that if diamonds weren't rare they would still be valuable due to their rare properties?

Those properties won’t be rare anymore when it’s as common as sand or air. People usually equate value by rarity alone. E.g a book written from a celebrity by hand or the last horn from a rihno is value because of its rarity alone and it gives a ego boost or/and some sort of status.


people say diamonds will be valueless if they become common usually.

 

[Deleted member 30682]

Those properties won’t be rare anymore when it’s as common as sand or air. People usually equate value by rarity alone. E.g a book written from a celebrity by hand or the last horn from a rihno is value because of its rarity alone and it gives a ego boost or/and some sort of status.


people say diamonds will be valueless if they become common usually.

 

[Blackcel rigth wing]

How’s this confusing for you? If they were as common as sand or air. The chance of finding quality is increased exponentially to the point that it’s not rare anymore.

If diamonds of all variety were as common

It’s literally at the start of the thread

 

[Deleted member 30682]

How’s this confusing for you? If they were as common as sand or air. The chance of find quality is increased exponentially to the point that it’s not rare anymore.

Didn't know it was a confused emoji. To me it's more like a "hmmm.. I'm thinking about this shit" emoji

 

[Solitude138]

Those properties won’t be rare anymore when it’s as common as sand or air. People usually equate value by rarity alone. E.g a book written from a celebrity by hand or the last horn from a rihno is value because of its rarity alone and it gives a ego boost or/and some sort of status.


people say diamonds will be valueless if they become common usually.

Yes, but it depends on how we define value. When people mean that they will become "valueless" they refer to financial/economic/commercial value of diamonds in general.
Essential elements like water, air, etc. will always have a value in any sense, but it doesn't mean that this will be commercial too, something you can sell under all circumstances.

If your question refers to value in a theoretical sense, you could bring other examples, bc I think most of us are not into "jewelry stuff" that much.

I myself would only choose to possess any piece of diamond or sapphire based on it's commercial value.

 

[Blackcel rigth wing]

Yes, but it depends on how we define value. When people mean that they will become "valueless" they refer to financial/economic/commercial value of diamonds in general.

Yes yes, exactly that you getting there, but you see it will always be useful for example diamond drills and possibly in photonics, not only that it’s also of quality. Diamonds are the hardest stones and very reflective.

We can use it for more scientific purposes. it being in abundance is great less time, energy and especially money for mining. It can all be put to better uses.

Sapphire however is mostly useless and of lesser quality than diamond. They don’t really have much use besides them being an ornament and because they’re rare. It’s all about ego and status

It’s value is held by its rarity only.

If your question refers to value in a theoretical sense, you could bring other examples, bc I think most of us are not into "jewelry stuff" that much.

It isn’t just jewellery it’s about something having an objective value and usefulness in the physical and not the mental world:

The value of something should be based by their quality and usefulness in the physical world(objective) instead stuff going on in the mental world(subjective)