Of diamonds and responsible eternities

Millennials, often described in media as hapless, poor and unfocused, reportedly dropped a cool $25 Billion on diamond jewellery in 2015. This indicator of current and future demand for sparklers notwithstanding, we are nearing the peak of natural diamond mining.

It raises the question as to why synthetic diamonds have not taken off.

After all, millennials as consumers are also focused on environmental consciousness and reportedly willing to pay a premium too. Further, laboratory-grown synthetic diamonds — not to be confused with diamond simulants, such as the non-precious cubic zirconia and the semi-precious white sapphire — are virtually indistinguishable from natural diamonds mined from the womb of the Earth in an energy intensive and ecologically intrusive process. The Gemological Institute of America now even certifies that the synthetic diamond you have just bought is real, authentic synthetic. Synthetic diamonds also come from a transparent supply chain with no human exploitation, which is an excellent reason to choose them.

Why then isn’t the world switching en masse to the more environmentally sensible option?

The answer lies in the deeper probing of what shapes our preferences. We don’t buy diamonds, diamonds are sold to us. There is hard nosed business behind shaping our desires even though the traditional reasoning behind engagement rings no longer holds water, and plenty of women can and do buy their own diamond rings.

The economics is simple enough. Synthetic diamonds sell at a considerable discount to real diamonds. Trade makes more money selling a real diamond than it does selling a synthetic one, even with a certificate. In turn, this means a consumer is likely to see many, many more real diamonds on offer than she will see synthetic ones. This shapes the consumer’s consideration set and undoubtedly influences what gets bought.

The value chain reason is more interesting. Making synthetic diamonds is a capital intensive business. The barriers to entry of a new player are significant. So unless the demand for synthetic diamonds is proven to exist, investment may not come pouring into the space. In a delicious but understandable irony and a strategic masterstroke, a De Beers group company owns a vast majority of patents in the manufacturing of synthetic diamonds. So while it is possible to manufacture synthetic diamonds, it may be darned hard to do so without committing patent violations. This is not trivial. From a consumer’s point of view, this changes nothing and everything at once. De Beers has invested in distribution as well as, since Frances Gerety’s virtually immortal “A diamond is forever” line in 1948, branding for diamonds. It would have been foolhardy and self-destructive, if De Beers did not try to hold on to those advantages.

The branding reason is, of course, the strongest.

Most diamond purchases are not rational purchases but rationalised, emotionally led buys. Feelings are notoriously difficult to dislodge and remarkably easy to hurt. For years, the intrinsically “forever” and “real” character of diamonds has been used as some kind of proof of eternal love and commitment. Would a synthetic diamond ring mean fewer flaws, more perfection but also fake, performative love on the cheap?

Here lies the opportunity.

The brand story for the category itself is ripe for change.

Millennials say they are willing to pay a premium for environmentally friendly products (though not always willing to make good on those intentions). If the positioning is right, synthetic diamonds need not be sold on the cheap. They could be positioned as the environmentally friendly, technologically advanced, ecologically savvy, energy conserving version of the gemstone for the new, tech-savvy generation, while their sparkle still remains celebratory.

Thanks to digital platforms, the engagement with millennials can be kept quite targeted and kept away from the prying eyes of the boomers or even Generation X, who may be confused by the messaging about synthetic diamonds or feel cheated.

Moves are afoot in the space already.

Until a few years ago, when I heard the word “diamonds”,  Dame Shirley Bassey’s booming “Diamonds are forever” rang in my ears. Mental concerts are a real thing, look them up.  The song is wall-to-wall marketing of the De Beers catchphrase of enviable longevity.

However nothing lasts forever, as the rock prophet Axl Rose reminds us.  Why then should sparklers bear this unfair burden of eternity and permanence?

Why not move the discourse from eternity and permanence to a more achievable and realistic exhortation to just “shine like a diamond”?

Move over Dame Shirley, Rihanna, the millennial maestra, is here.

 

Empathy as luxury?

“Empathy is luxury. Think about it. If you have the time to read about other points of view, you have the luxury of time, that you can spend on reading other perspectives and build empathy.”, said my interlocutor, an entrepreneur building a platform for contrarian views. I am paraphrasing a bit but we had been talking about how to break the filter bubble that the liberal metropolitan elite inhabit. Better people than I are already exploring how the word “elite” came to be associated pejoratively with liberal, metropolitan persons.

Research evidence from the USA and the UK however shows us that the poor, who do not have spare time since more time spent working is more money, are more charitable and more community minded. In other words, the poor display more empathy. How can empathy be a “luxury” then?

I believe in the essentialness of empathy though I arrive at it from another perspective.

I see myself as a part of a whole, whether that whole be our neighbourhood or the planet. As such my being empathetic is nothing more than my honouring my self.

She wasn’t convinced.

Further expounding on how I got to this framing of this world, I found that it may have come from imbibing some of the Hinduistic philosophical and cultural values amidst which I grew up in India. The idea of the unity of the macro- and the microcosms of our being is embedded in Aham Brahmasmi, “I am the infinite reality”. The idea is also embedded in the greeting Namaste, “I bow to the divine in you”. The idea of consequentiality of our actions naturally follows, often stated controversially in the western world as “Karma is a bitch”.

It is trivially evident that neither business nor humanity can act as if their shared linkages and connectivity do not matter, and as if they can thrive or even survive without one another.

Both spiritually and rationally, empathy is therefore not a luxury in my view.

The idea of luxury as empathy however appeals to me. More on which, later.

Four For Friday (37)

Stanford University announced its new President this week. Marc Tessier-Lavigne is a “pioneering neuroscientist, former Stanford faculty member and outspoken advocate for higher education”. More importantly, in keeping with Stanford’s reputation as a crucible for entrepreneurial creativity, he has been executive vice president for research and chief scientific officer at Genentech, leading work on disease research and drug discovery for cancer, immune disorders, infectious diseases and neurodegenerative diseases.

In a conversation with Ruth Porat, a member of Stanford’s board of trustees, Tessier-Lavigne he talks about how, as a Rhodes Scholar, he chose philosophy and sharpened his critical thinking, and learnt to appreciate the importance of a broad-based education encompassing both liberal arts and the sciences. He talks at length about his research philosophy and interdisciplinarity. “Greatest advances are often made at the interfaces of disciplines,” he says, thus underscoring a crucial aspect of innovation for human betterment.

This week’s links are all about the role of liberal arts in education, research, and scholarship.

India is stereotyped in the west as a country of maths and engineering nerds. Creating a broad base of technocrats was what India needed after it gained independence from British rule. But this has created lopsided development. In a recent essay on the importance — and timeliness — of creating a liberal arts university in India, the founders review the history of higher education in India and ask crucial questions while outlining the form liberal arts education is taking in India under their watchful gaze.

Today, liberal education in India is not just blindly aping the western model. It incorporates the best of content, courses and knowledge that India has to offer and marries it with the best in contemporary pedagogy in terms of experiential learning, use of technology, grass-roots immersion and mentorship. It ensures that the best minds in India are capable of engaging with the toughest challenges we face as a society. This way we ensure that the Indian liberal education aspires to be not just the best in the world but the best for the world. As America worries about its overdependence on liberal education and its rising costs and relevance, India and its Asian neighbours are showing how a rejuvenated model of liberal education is not just an imperative but can be delivered in a high-quality and affordable model at a large scale. As a country we have the opportunity to change the course of higher education not just for India but for the world.

This impassioned essay reproduced in the Washington Post suggests kids need to learn philosophy. The entire essay is worth your time — especially though not only if you have or are in charge of children, in any form. For today’s children are tomorrow’s men and women, and we all have a stake in the matter. An excerpt:

I think most of us realize that society is a necessary compromise, and at least pay lip service to the idea that critical thinking and effective communication are virtues essential for its success. As we get older  many of us tend to be less open to new information, evidence, and arguments — but we can and should instill the requisite virtues in our children via K-12 education.

“It’s easier to build strong children than to repair broken men,” as Frederick Douglass once said in a different context. In that spirit, then, it’s imperative that our kids become philosophers.

As both the founders of Ashoka University in India and Steve Neumann, the author of the essay in WaPo note, liberal arts and philosophy seem to have a poor reputation as something of little “use” to society. To balance that, uh, feeling, here is a utilitarian argument about why digital companies need liberal arts majors. The piece is longer than it needs to be, but it can be skim-read for the main points.

But there will be a limit to how far computers can replace human capabilities, at least in the near long term. What can’t be replaced in any organization imaginable in the future is precisely what seems overlooked today: liberal arts skills, such as creativity, empathy, listening, and vision. These skills, not digital or technological ones, will hold the keys to a company’s future success. And yet companies aren’t hiring for them. This is a problem for today’s digital companies, and it’s only going to get worse.

Vinod Khosla, a leading light in the Silicon Valley, however holds a slightly different opinion. He argues that we need to teach critical thinking and the scientific method first, and humanities later.

To me, the fundamental tools of learning stem (no pun intended) from science, technology, engineering, and math. This updated curriculum should eclipse the archaic view of liberal education still favored by institutions like Harvard and Yale based on a worldview from the 1800s. Critical subject matter should include economics, statistics, mathematics, logic and systems modeling, current (not historical) cultural evolution, psychology, and computer programming. Furthermore, certain humanities disciplines such as literature and history should become optional subjects, in much the same way as physics is today (and, of course, I advocate mandatory physics study).

Finally, English and social studies should be replaced with the scientific process, critical thinking, rhetoric, and analysis of current news—imagine a required course each semester where every student is asked to analyze and debate topics from every issue of a broad publication such as The Economist, Scientific American, orTechnology Review. Such a curriculum would not only provide a platform for understanding in a more relevant context how the physical, political, cultural and technical worlds function, but would also impart instincts for interpreting the world, and prepare students to become active participants in the economy. After all, what is the job of education?

While I don’t fully agree with the “how” of Mr Khosla’s line of thinking, in my own life, I have made choices that have followed a similar path in educating myself as I have written elsewhere.

Studying numerate, “right answer” things followed by studying humanities – Engineering is a good first degree (although I think Physics is better but problem formulation skills acquired in engineering are second to none); but to situate the problem solving in the real world needs an understanding of how resources are allocated and how decisions are made. Studying the “there is no right answer” disciplines helped me become less linear and more able in life in general. It has worked well for my career too (I am now teaching Society & Technology to engineering undergraduates as a choice, and this was a subject I wish we had studied when we were in engineering school).

Four For Friday (23)

A reason behind this series was for me to keep track of my own varied reading. Everything, while appearing disjointed, really is connected. Often there is a unifying theme too. Can you see this week’s?

Much has been written lately about terminology. An “immigrant” has fewer rights than a “refugee” but has exercised more autonomy in arriving in a country that promises her a better future. To an alien, especially one reading European press it would seem immigrants remain just a smidgen more welcome than refugees. Should Europe be worried as much as it is? Click here to see where the refugees come from and where they go.

Should Europe instead worry more than the USA constantly gets high quality immigrants, as Scott Sumner writes here?

One of the reasons why the US is more unequal than a place like Germany, especially at the very top, is that the US is host to economic engines like Wall Street and Silicon Valley and Hollywood. I suppose you could throw in fracking. There’s no particular reason why continental Europe couldn’t have its own Wall Street, or Silicon Valley or Hollywood or fracking industry, but they don’t. Britain has “the City” which is sort of the Wall Street of Europe, and that adds to inequality in Britain. But Europe failed to attract the other engines of wealth creation and inequality that are as dominant as the US examples. Europe’s industries tend to be less of the boom/bust variety that often lead to great wealth, although they certainly have their share of billionaires.

From self-driving cars at Google to teaching and learning at Udacity, Sebastian Thrun outlines the problem with technology.

“Because of the increased efficiency of machines, it is getting harder and harder for a human to make a productive contribution to society.”

In a week when Apple announced more new products — and a plan (in some countries) for annually leasing iPhones — there is no need to wonder about what happens to our old mobile phones. In the EU, the manufacturer must take back end of life electric and electronic goods. Everyone from Mercedes to Apple offers recycling returns; if in working order, Apple devices recycling earns you a neat sum too. But we don’t know what happens to our best intentions & their regulation compliance.

We reached the shore, and looked across the lake. I’d seen some photos before I left for Inner Mongolia, but nothing prepared me for the sight. It’s a truly alien environment, dystopian and horrifying. The thought that it is man-made depressed and terrified me, as did the realisation that this was the byproduct not just of the consumer electronics in my pocket, but also green technologies like wind turbines and electric cars that we get so smugly excited about in the West. Unsure of quite how to react, I take photos and shoot video on my cerium polished iPhone.

It being Friday and New York Fashion Week, let’s finish with a note on style.

“On having his own style icons: “Why should I . . . I am one!””

Four For Friday (22)

Since the last edit of this occasional series, the scope of this blog has grown to envelope all my interests. Curation becomes trickier, but on y va! Those, who used to follow the series in the past, will notice that there are now excerpts. These are mere amuse-bouche to nudge you to click and read the whole article linked!

Rebecca Robins explores what luxury means in the age of “you”, grounding luxury in history and modern technology at once.

In The Age of You, the fine line between what luxury brands reveal and conceal as they engage with the transparency demanded of consumers and the element of mystery that is endemic to their very being, will be fascinating to watch.

Liam McGee writes how CEOs can work in partnership with their boards of directors without sacrificing their own authority.

It’s all a matter of developing trust. In my five years as CEO of The Hartford, a Fortune 100 insurer, winning trust was crucial to turning around the company in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Building trust can be a delicate thing, but it isn’t magic. You don’t need special charisma. All you really need is courage and self-confidence.

Starting over can be a boost to creativity, not a mark of failure. This idea caught my attention: “what are you still good at?”

Coping with old age and illness in his later years, Henri Matisse could no longer hold a paintbrush. So he put away his oils and restarted in a new medium. Discovering he could work with scissors, Matisse began what he called “painting with scissors,” creating his famous cut-out works. It became one of the most prolific—and stunning—periods of his career.

Having spent the last three years thinking about design and creativity, I found Amrita Chandra’s piece on why businesses are investing in design naturally engrossing.

Industries are being disrupted at a much faster pace than ever before. Leah cited an Insight study that showed the lifespan of company going from 60 years in the 1960s to 18 years in 2012. The level of volatility organizations have to live with today is motivating them to behave in different ways, and design is seen as a solution to this volatility. This is one reason why management consulting companies from Anderson to McKinsey have acquired design firms in the last 8 years.