Growing up I was never really attracted to gems in general or diamonds especially. For one, I don’t wear jewelry that much, and when I do I like intricate wire creations more than jewel studded stuff. I never really understood why diamonds are so attractive to people. I like color and so a clear diamond, while it sparkles, is nowhere near as attractive to me as a rich emerald, sapphire, ruby, garnet, topaz, opal; the list goes on of cheaper and more colorful stones that I would rather have. (admittedly not much cheaper)
However, saying this only dodges the question of whether the information on blood diamonds changes my opinion of them because if the issue was blood sapphires, for example, it would be the same. So, instead of answering about blood diamonds, I am going to say blood gems, because the concept is the same and I’m sure that there are countries that use proceeds from other gem sales for less than worthy endeavors.
So, has information about conflict gems changed my opinions of whether or not to buy gems? Not really. It has merely strengthened my opinion that natural gems aren’t worth the expense. There are many synthetic alternatives to almost every gem if you want to have a pretty rock on your earrings/necklace/bracelet. Depending on the quality of the lab grown gem, it may have the exact same properties as natural gems or it may have different properties. Irregardless, they are cheaper and just as pretty so why not use them? In regards to diamonds, since we know how to synthesize tool-quality gems I have no real problem with people wearing them in general, though I believe they are put to better use in precision tools. Until countries in
No comments:
Post a Comment