20 comments

  • hn_submit 34 minutes ago
    The market for natural diamonds will cease to exist when you can buy lab-grown versions for a couple bucks.

    They wanted to differentiate between natural and lab-grown versions with the former being much more expensive. But that train has left the station since there's little to no difference in quality between the two. In fact, I once predicted there'd be huge scams where lab-grown ones would be repackaged and sold as natural ones and that would ruin customers' trust in natural diamonds.

    But it now seems that isn't going to happen because customers are voting with their feet and leaving natural diamonds behind.

    • willsmith72 30 minutes ago
      > there's little to no difference in quality between the two

      Lab grown can be way better quality. To me it was a no-brainer considering the ethical concerns, then add in the cost difference. The only argument I've heard for natural is "I like the imperfections". Sounds like brainwashing to me. They're chemically identical

      The mining industry should die

      • kstrauser 12 minutes ago
        I personally find lab grown much more beautiful, in that they’re an amazing accomplishment of mankind’s science and technology. So a tree got squeezed underground until it turned into a crystal? Cool, I guess, but big deal. Humans learned enough about how matter works to recreate those conditions at industrial scale? That’s amazing!

        I’d much rather wear a monument to our cleverness than a dinosaur mashed under a rock.

    • Loughla 11 minutes ago
      My spouse lost the main stone on their ring. We were able to get another that was twice the size and WAAAY better clarity and quality for about half of the price of the first one.

      It's astonishing that it has taken this long to have this kind of impact.

    • bsoqk 30 minutes ago
      > The market for natural diamonds will cease to exist when you can buy lab-grown versions for a couple bucks.

      Just like the luxury watches market ceased to exist when you could buy quartz watches for 10 bucks.

      • cjbgkagh 4 minutes ago
        Well the privet to luxury was due to quartz watches taking their core business, and now Chinese superclones are in the early days of threatening their luxury business. At a certain point it’s hard to care about the residual difference.
      • Loughla 10 minutes ago
        Except in this case, the quartz watches would be better quality than the luxury watches

        I'm not sure your analogy has teeth.

  • tedchs 2 hours ago
    > Demand for engagement rings gave thousands of South Africans steady work at De Beers. Now, weak sales and lab-grown stones are taking it away.

    So wait, on this Labor Day weekend, it sounds like the WSJ is pro-worker, but only if they're in South Africa?

    • brookst 1 hour ago
      Nah, they’re pro-De Beers
    • kstrauser 8 minutes ago
      Given the infamous conditions of diamond mining, to me that reads like “won’t someone think of the jobless slaves?” Someone no longer being forced to slave away in the mines is not exactly a great loss to workers rights.

      “De Beers: Because the tears of children make it sparkle!”

    • delfinom 1 hour ago
      At least they aren't blaming millennials still.
  • MobileVet 17 minutes ago
    This took way longer than I hoped & expected... the DeBeers cartel in full damage control has really squeezed everything they could from it.
  • thijson 23 minutes ago
    I wonder if diamonds become cheap enough, and we are growing the crystal anyway, if we can introduce dopants and get interesting electrical properties.
  • davidhyde 2 hours ago
    Oh shame. The poor devils.
  • wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago
    Shorter:

    "South African diamond mines are closing due to lab-grown stones"

  • mlmonkey 2 hours ago
    I heard once that even if DeBeers stopped all diamond mining activity, their existing stockpile would last for a 100 years or more.
    • johnnyApplePRNG 1 hour ago
      It would probably last 1,000 years, now.

      Since nobody wants to buy them anymore.

    • senorrib 1 hour ago
      That’s not even close to being true.
      • loloquwowndueo 1 hour ago
        You both need to provide citations my dudes.
        • margalabargala 1 hour ago
          The first person hedged their statement with "I heard once" so it's likely true regardless of whether the rest is accurate.

          In a similar vein it has been said (by me, just now) that DeBeers is actually already out of diamonds and manufactures then de novo from the compressed ashes of orphans.

          • bdangubic 19 minutes ago
            I heard that De Beers donated 99.6% of all of their profits so I am not sure what all the hoopla is about them
            • margalabargala 1 minute ago
              Right but I heard that the recipient of the donation was the Epstein-Trump Boarding School For Children.
          • loloquwowndueo 58 minutes ago
            “I heard” = hearsay. Citation needed. (I mean, I heard the earth is flat - but it’s not)
  • missedthecue 1 hour ago
    Brutal news for Botswana which was really breaking new ground in raising Sub Saharan living standards. 30% of their GDP and a huge portion of government revenues are diamond exports. And they had gotten to 100% formalized and child labor free supply lines
    • hedora 1 hour ago
      The did away with child slavery in the mines, but severely exploited female adults instead:

      https://www.freedomunited.org/news/botswana-diamonds-ugly-tr...

      Things like marital rape are still legal there.

      • colingauvin 42 minutes ago
        I'm not trying to read your comment as whataboutism, but it did get me wondering: From a moral or ethical standpoint, if there is a gradient route from "very immoral to moral", but it involves first going from "very immoral" to just plain old regular immoral - do we view it as an improvement or a deficiency? Is there a route that involves going from very immoral to moral in one direct step?

        For example, exploitation is bad, but child exploitation is worse. So moving from just child exploitation to adult exploitation is a positive move that still results in an abhorrent status quo. On the other hand I can't think of an example where we went from child exploitation --> no exploitation of any kind...

      • aaron695 49 minutes ago
        [dead]
    • bastawhiz 1 hour ago
      Botswana's diamond mining industry is exactly one company: Debswana, a 50/50 joint venture between the government of Botswana and De Beers.

      Which means, when you think about it, that half of one subsidiary of De Beers is effectively producing ~one third of Botswana's GDP. Really puts into perspective how exploitative De Beers is.

      • missedthecue 33 minutes ago
        This is a difficult conclusion to draw given that the implied counterfactual is the assumption that Botswana could have had similar results sans De Beers. I don't think that's at all obvious. If my problem was that I had raw diamonds a few hundred meters underground and wanted to turn them into dollars, I'd probably call the preeminent experts on mining, refining, and marketing diamonds as well.

        The venture began in 1969 and as difficult as the economic situation there is now, subsaharan africa was an even worse place then. So I think your counterfactual needs put into perspective. Additionally in 2013, the state created the 100% owned Okavango Diamond Company to export diamonds using the institutional knowledge they'd gathered over the decades.

      • BurningFrog 12 minutes ago
        I would describe it at showing how poor/unproductive the rest of Botswana's economy is.

        Or is the theory here that De Beers somehow keeps the part of the Botswanian economy they don't participate in poor/unproductive?

    • bossyTeacher 1 hour ago
      Hopefully, the have foreseen this and they have diversified adequately. Relying on a single source for most of your income is never good. Whether that is diamonds or oil. Hopefully they got their own sovereign fund up and running/
  • lovich 4 minutes ago
    Its not gonna be just diamonds, pretty much every gemstone is subject to the lab grown stuff.

    Im into gem cutting as a hobby so its been great for me to find stuff like these cheap ruby roughs[1] but yea, its gonna fuck up anyone selling the natural stuff.

    [1]https://www.etsy.com/listing/4443524661/lab-grown-red-ruby-s...

  • bookofjoe 4 hours ago
  • jonstewart 1 hour ago
    So lab grown diamonds are good and cheap enough I can finally buy my wife of 21 years a diamond ring?
    • Loughla 8 minutes ago
      Yes. And there are a ton of companies that sell just loose stones, so you can take it to a locally owned shop for the ring and setting, thereby keeping more of the money in your own community.
  • SoftTalker 2 hours ago
    Good.
  • glimshe 1 hour ago
    How will we survive without the safe and wholesome diamond mines? I guess we'll all have to be okay with the much superior and cheaper lab diamonds...

    The picture subtitle says everything that needs to be said about this: "Miners like De Beers have positioned diamonds as synonymous with love and devotion."

    Scumbags.

  • yogthos 2 hours ago
    uplifting news of the day right there
  • insamniac 3 hours ago
    similar to the lab-grown intelligence impact
  • AdmiralAsshat 2 hours ago
    "Millennials are killing diamond mines!"
  • ggm 3 hours ago
    "The death of the diamond" Edward Jay Epstein (1983)
  • 486sx33 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • reid-rigo 2 hours ago
    Hope to see these headlines some day for the meat industry
    • SoftTalker 2 hours ago
      If we can replace the taste, appearance, and texture of a medium-rare rib eye with lab grown meat at a substantially cheaper price, we will.
      • 0xcde4c3db 35 minutes ago
        True, but it's also the case that in some places and subcultures we're already at a point where meat with certain qualifications in some contexts is a Veblen good, and the rhetoric around it is very much a quasi-mystical blend of notions of purity and vitalism (see e.g. paleo/primal/ancestral diet influencers). That edge, almost by definition, can't be produced in a lab, and if we were really being purely rational/utilitarian about these things, I doubt we'd be eating as much meat as we are today.
        • kstrauser 1 minute ago
          I love a good cheeseburger. I’ve enjoyed ones from Michelin restaurants and from local holes in the wall; I’m not choosy. To me, the taste and texture of a cheeseburger is one of the best testing things on the planet.

          I do not eat cheeseburgers to feel manly or dominant. I eat them because they are delicious. If I could have a plant-based or otherwise non-meat burger that tastes as good as the real thing, I’d eat it. Beyond burgers are getting close and I’ve had my fair share of them, but they’re not there yet. They’re near enough that I’m confident we’ll get there soon.

      • TomJansen 1 hour ago
        >substantially cheaper price

        why substantially cheaper? Break-even would be fine too, no? And as a plus, lab-grown meat is much more ethical.

        I also think that replacing 'cheap' meat like ground beef would already be sufficient and would make a huge impact, there is really no need make it difficult for ourselves and try to replace rib-eye.

        • fooker 1 hour ago
          For me, it would have to be mass produced and about an order of magnitude cheaper.

          I'd rather not be testing/tasting experimental lab stuff. And mass production bringing down the price with economies of scale is the real proof that the technology is ready.

          • willsmith72 26 minutes ago
            there's nothing holy about eating real animals (unless you're religious)

            i'm no vegan, but if identical lab-grown alternatives are available at near same cost without the hormones, antibiotics, emissions, I'll take it

            • fooker 9 minutes ago
              Identical is the point here.

              The test of 'identical' to me is going to be mass production with economies of scale. I surely don't have the equipment to test whether it's identical, nor would I trust the marketing.

        • skeledrew 1 hour ago
          Maybe there's something about lives being taken to provide the food that appeals to certain people.
        • wonderwonder 1 hour ago
          I don't think most people are going to grab lab grown out of the grocer fridge if normal beef is available for the same price. I know I would not. But if its 25% cheaper I'm happy to try it
          • loloquwowndueo 1 hour ago
            I would for the same price as it doesn’t involve killing a cow. That’s a plus for me!
      • wonderwonder 2 hours ago
        Agree, as long as it's meat. Lab grown meat from cells is meat. The reason impossible never worked was becuase it wasn't meat. Very few people are going to trade meat for soy and vegetables
        • fooker 1 hour ago
          Yeah impossible was targeting a weird small niche.

          The intersection of 'vegan by all means', 'loves the taste of meat', 'does not care about ultra processed food', 'enough money to go for the expensive option'.

          No wonder it did not work.

        • nkrisc 45 minutes ago
          Even though I do eat meat I still enjoy black bean burger patties far more than Impossible because a black bean patty is tasty in its own way and not trying to replicate meat.

          A black bean patty or similar is a tasty bit of food that works well in a burger form.

          I like meat but not every meal I eat needs to have meat in it. Give me tasty (and cheaper) alternatives to meat and I’ll eat them in place of meat sometimes.

        • moate 1 hour ago
          IDK what "never worked" means here, the market cap for Impossible/Beyond alone is still over a billion dollars. You can still get an Impossible Whopper at any Burger King in the US.

          There's plenty of issues with selling meat alternatives, I don't think you're the person to speak to them for some reason...

          • bluefirebrand 49 minutes ago
            According to Google AI "The global beef industry has a total market value of approximately $465 billion to $526 billion"

            Impossible/Beyond barely exists in comparison

      • hedora 1 hour ago
        Modern beef is unhealthy for humans due to grazing conditions. Maybe the lab grown stuff will be closer to conventional farming output.
        • jonstewart 1 hour ago
          Hopefully most people here getting ribeyes aren’t getting them from the same factory farms that supply McDonald’s and sell other cheap kinds of beef. A ribeye is an occasional luxury and best bought from the farmer.
          • bookofjoe 57 minutes ago
            >... best bought from the farmer.

            Perhaps you're anticipating this:

            https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/4/trump-allows...

            • Loughla 5 minutes ago
              This just opens up the door for meat that isn't inspected before sale. That's not ideal, really.

              There are farmers everywhere who will sell you a cow. There are small butcher shops that will process it.

              This is a solution in search of a problem, in my opinion. It will only benefit already massive corporation farms.