Why do we have engagement rings?
Isn’t it enough just to agree to get married without one? Do you really need to have a shiny rock on a finger in order to commit to a full-time relationship? Of course you don’t, but is has become so much the custom that we may not even think about any alternative. When a woman gets engaged, what is one of the first things that is asked of her? “Show me the ring.” How did we get here?
There used to be laws about a “breach of promise to marry.” These allowed women to sue a man if he broke off the engagement. The idea was that a broken engagement somehow lessoned the woman’s value for finding a new mate. A diamond ring was one way to create a hedge against this. If an engagement was broken the woman could simply keep the (usually expensive) ring; no lawsuit needed.
We have the DeBeers corporation to thank for our attachment to diamond engagement rings. An English-born businessman, Cecil Rhodes, began the company by buying some diamond fields in South Africa in 1888. By 1902 deBeers controlled 90% of the worlds diamond production and distribution. And you know what happens with monopolies, right? It turns out that diamonds aren’t actually that scarce. It is just that the vast majority of them are owned by one company that gets to control their distribution.
DeBeers came up with arguable the most successful marketing campaigns of all time in 1947. Diamonds were not as popular as they were a few decades before, and the company had to do something to get that popularity back. They came up with the slogan “A diamond is forever.” And they created a comparison that, when you think about it, really is rather silly. They equated diamonds to love. With their marketing campaign men became convinced that the size of a diamond gifted to their significant other showed how much they loved them. Movie stars were seen wearing them in new movies. As a result the number of brides-to-be receiving engagement rings (and the price of diamonds) rose dramatically.
But now we have a choice (if we still want to make use of the diamond engagement ring as a custom). Now we have lab grown diamonds. These are diamonds created by man, and there really isn’t any discernable difference compared to those created by the Earth. They are a lot cheaper too. A 2-cart lab grown diamond may be around a quarter of the price of an “earth-grown” one.
I bring all of this up to ask you a simple question: is natural better?
Are “normal” diamonds better than lab grown diamonds?
Is real leather better than fake leather?
What about medicine? Is natural better than synthetic? Many people think so. Researchers have studies this. Some people have a belief that nature is pure and therefore natural things are inherently superior to man-made things. Nature gave us aspirin and morphine and other medications derived from plants. But not all plant-based products have been shown to be effective. There are major studies showing that echinacea doesn’t have a benefit against the common cold. Ginko supplements may not actually help to slow dementia or cognitive decline.
What is the real reason may not like the synthetic, as opposed to natural? Many people point to one word in their argument: chemical. It has become somewhat of a dirty word amongst us. What do you think when you hear this statement: “That is full of chemicals.”? Is that a bad thing, to be full of chemicals? Well, not necessarily. Pretty much everything is made up of chemicals (even you). And there are plenty of natural chemicals that can be harmful to us. Here are just a few examples of bad-for-you but natural chemicals: mercury, snake venom, arsenic, and ricin.
Sugar is natural (although we do like to process it). Is it good for us? Sometimes this way of thinking bleeds into technology. “If man was meant to fly,” the old saying goes, “he would have been born with wings.” But we fly all around the globe nowadays.
Do we have an example of technology being used to great effect in the bible? We sure do
1 Samuel 17:41-51
41 Meanwhile, the Philistine, with his shield bearer in front of him, kept coming closer to David. 42 He looked David over and saw that he was little more than a boy, glowing with health and handsome, and he despised him. 43 He said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44 “Come here,” he said, “and I’ll give your flesh to the birds and the wild animals!”
45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. 47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.”
48 As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. 49 Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.
50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.
51 David ran and stood over him. He took hold of the Philistine’s sword and drew it from the sheath. After he killed him, he cut off his head with the sword.
David beat goliath in part because God gave him better technology. A sling and stone was the perfect weapon against a fighter like Goliath. And David was groomed to use that weapon from an early age.
So is progress all that good? Are natural things better? The popular view of the Amish are that they reject all technology, but this isn’t really the case. Several Amish have cell phones and power tools. The difference between most of the Amish and most of us is the amount of deliberation that occurs before deciding whether to embrace something new. They don’t operate under the assumption that new things are always better. Instead they are cautious. They ask what the real benefit of something is going to be. Is it going to be helpful or detrimental? Is it going to help our community life or will it hurt what we have?
Wise words indeed.
God Bless