I was really upset by two phrases in your comment: "...kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money" and "Having more money doesn't make someone a better person automatically..." My idea solves absolutely diffrent problem - this is clearly stated in the article. What does inequality have to do with it? We are talking about rational use of civilizations labor resources. You mentioned you use AI to form your arguments I dont condemn you at all, but I want to note: AI often makes serious mistakes in logical thinking, so its very important to carefully check its responses You write: "If you have just one generalized number then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize."
My idea doesnt deprive anyone of the ability to have high social status. I don't fight drug lords I don't fight inequality, I rationalize the costs of civilization. — let me repeat: my idea aimed at rational use of labor/material resources. If a drug lord instead of buying diamonds directs money to an investment bank (to get digital status) — is that bad? The capital remains his, he gets the income, but resources aren’t burned for an empty symbol. To fight drug lords and inequality, completely different methods are needed. My idea is not aimed at improving bridge construction, post-operative rehabilitation, or pie baking, or anything else. I specifically emphasized this in the article. My idea is an engineering solution to the luxury market and nothing more. Redirecting funds spent on diamonds and yachts into useful channels. That's all. All other problems must have a different solution.
The paragraph about "either you get a system where money can measure your value as a human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account...... which while dystopian, has some merits" shows that my idea was completely misunderstood.The project is voluntary doesnt impose a unified scale of human value, doesnt ban luxury. It simply offers an alternative.
And again, a call for education... This has been done for decades, but the luxury market grows every year (1.5 trillion annually, doubles every 12- 15 years). Do you want to keep doing this? Education doesn't work!! We need an engineering mechanism, not moral appeals.
This argument seems incredibly odd: "Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff." Wait—that's exactly what I'm saying! Luxury = burning up enormous resources for tiny physical objects. If people spent the same money on things with greater material value (food, housing, infrastructure), those resources would be spent more rationally. You want to save the environment by using human labor irrationally? In other words, spending money (burning money) on useless things saves the environment? sorry but this is very strange concern and argument.
1. "Alternative symbols already exist - fame, influence, titles" Absolutely right. Titles, academic degress, awards, profesional reputation - these are exactly the beginnigns, manifestations, signs of society moving towards a logical solution: creating a digital expresion of social status. These mechanisms already work (each in its own niche) and only require globalisation or unification Academy, politics, sports, art, tech - each sphere has its own hierarchy based on verifiable achievements. The project offers to generalise and scale this principle.
2. "Luxury is for those with no real fame - only money" This is a precise hit on the projects target audience. For this category -"rich but not famous; sucessful but not influential" - luxury remains the only accesible way to signal. The project offers an alternative: convert capital not into a yacht, but into a verifiable digital index.
But youre right about Taylor Swift. Even the super-rich are subject to the pressure of accepted status standards. Theres an unwritten level of "required" consumption. Only highly intellectually independent people can ignore these rules. The project gives the majority a legit alternative: meet status expectations without burning resources.
3. "Part of purchases is belief in quality" Agreed, this motivation exists. But you partly answered this question yourself in the comment: "Probably its true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns". Exactly. The project isnt against quality. Its against the status markup - the part of the price not related to function.
Three fears
Fear 1: psychological pressure of the race for a number We experience psychological pressure anyway - regardless of the prize: money, gold, titles, degrees, medals. Pressure is formed not by the prize, but by the principle of life based on struggle. Alas, we are doomed to this pressure. My idea pursues another goal: saving civilization from irrational use of life resources (primarily labor costs - this is the most valuable resource, materials are a thousand times less valuable). Let it convert into digital indexes, not materials and man-hours wasted on an empty symbol.
Fear 2: Wont eradicate luxury You are absolutely right. Especialy at the first stage, a large number of people will do exactly this. There will be a double race. But over time everything will change. Luxury will disappear as a relic of the past. Even today, some people ignore luxury items. Imagine what will happen if we provide people with a legitimate alternative.
Fear 3: legitimizes the idea that "status matters" Status is already legit. The project doesnt create the race, it makes the existing race less wasteful.
Conclusion Your comment is one of the most thoughtful I have received. The main problem of a status symbol is its high price in resources, specifically in man-hours (materials are a thousand times less valuable). My proposal reduces this price to zero.
They have been trying to solve this problem unsuccessfuly for a long time. Traditional measures dont work. The luxury market is only growing: according to Bain & Company, in 2023 it reached €1.5 trillion, and in the long term a growth of 4-6% annually is forcasted. This means the market doubles aproximatly every 12--15 years.
A digital status marker is not just an improvement. This is a fundamentally new solution to an old problem.
Youre absolutely right! I have to admit, I gave a pretty poor example sorry for that stupidity. I see my reply didnt land well with many. got 5 downvotes for it -which I assume are from football fans whose feelings got hurt by that clumsy analogy. So let me be clear: I have great respect for football and its fans, and I didnt mean to offend anyone. Hope you can forgive my blunder!
That said, I do have a question: do you have any concerns about the actual proposal in the article — aside from the football tangent? Because my idea really has nothing to do with football (except for that one bad example). Its solely about the luxury market.
Thank you for the detailed comment. You raise important questions — especially about the psychology of "visible" status and the risk of turning ordinary people into "certified losers". Thats serious.
However,the proposal isn't about imposing a single race for a number on everyone. Its about voluntarily offering an alternative to those tired of burning resources to visualize sucess.
About "invisibility": Youre right — a low score can hurt. But the system doesnt have to be public to everyone. Like a credit score: only those you allow see it (bank, employer, partner). Want to keep your "number" private? Do it. Want to show it off? Your choice.
About "not everyone chases status": Absolutely true and the project doesnt require everyone to participate. It just creates a paralell track for those willing to compete for recognition through verifiable acheivements, not through buying symbols. The rest can continue living as they have.
About nuances of taste: You hit the nail on the head — a single number really cant replace the palette of signals. But the system doesnt have to be monolithic. You can have different "tracks": science, art, technology, social contribution. Each with its own criteria. This isnt simplification, its structuring. Let's get back to the core. Not to what we call things, but to the essence of the problem. In my article, I define luxury ONLY to highlight one thing: THE MASSIVE WASTE OF MONEY ON PRODUCING LUXURY.Period. There's no point debating what counts as taste versus excess, or who gets to decide. Regardless of our preferences, civilization spends trillions annually on luxury goods. And those expenditures won't shrink just because we reinterpret the nuances.
So far, no traditional measures (taxes, appeals, restrictions) against luxury production have worked - and they won't. luxury market grows every year. Today its volume is already estimated at €1.5 trillion annually (Bain & Company, 2023). And this isn't my assertion — it's data from the industry itself, openly reporting its own growth (Deloitte, 2023 )
The proposal isn't about arguing over terms or banning anything. It's about creating a voluntary, resource-cheap alternative. If a digital reputation gives the same social weight and access to opportunities as expensive symbols, BUT WITHOUT BURNING MATERIALS AND LABOR -the market will adjust itself. Not by decree, but by interest.
My method is a fundamentally new way to fight the cancerous tumor of civilization's LUXURY MARKET where trillions of dollars of human life resources are burned for nothing
I was really upset by two phrases in your comment:
"...kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money" and "Having more money doesn't make someone a better person automatically..."
My idea solves absolutely diffrent problem - this is clearly stated in the article. What does inequality have to do with it? We are talking about rational use of civilizations labor resources.
You mentioned you use AI to form your arguments I dont condemn you at all, but I want to note: AI often makes serious mistakes in logical thinking, so its very important to carefully check its responses
You write: "If you have just one generalized number then a drug lord can have high status due to money and rank higher than a scientist who gets a Nobel prize."
My idea doesnt deprive anyone of the ability to have high social status. I don't fight drug lords I don't fight inequality, I rationalize the costs of civilization. — let me repeat: my idea aimed at rational use of labor/material resources. If a drug lord instead of buying diamonds directs money to an investment bank (to get digital status) — is that bad? The capital remains his, he gets the income, but resources aren’t burned for an empty symbol. To fight drug lords and inequality, completely different methods are needed. My idea is not aimed at improving bridge construction, post-operative rehabilitation, or pie baking, or anything else. I specifically emphasized this in the article. My idea is an engineering solution to the luxury market and nothing more. Redirecting funds spent on diamonds and yachts into useful channels. That's all. All other problems must have a different solution.
The paragraph about "either you get a system where money can measure your value as a human being, or if you avoid it, you get some sort of moral policing or social credit system, where you also take other things into account...... which while dystopian, has some merits" shows that my idea was completely misunderstood.The project is voluntary doesnt impose a unified scale of human value, doesnt ban luxury. It simply offers an alternative.
And again, a call for education... This has been done for decades, but the luxury market grows every year (1.5 trillion annually, doubles every 12- 15 years). Do you want to keep doing this?
Education doesn't work!! We need an engineering mechanism, not moral appeals.
This argument seems incredibly odd:
"Maybe negative effects on environment and resources. $10,000 spent on a Rolex buys you 100-200 g of stuff, $10,000 spent on something else could buy you hundreds of kilos of stuff."
Wait—that's exactly what I'm saying! Luxury = burning up enormous resources for tiny physical objects. If people spent the same money on things with greater material value (food, housing, infrastructure), those resources would be spent more rationally.
You want to save the environment by using human labor irrationally? In other words, spending money (burning money) on useless things saves the environment? sorry but this is very strange concern and argument.
1. "Alternative symbols already exist - fame, influence, titles" Absolutely right. Titles, academic degress, awards, profesional reputation - these are exactly the beginnigns, manifestations, signs of society moving towards a logical solution: creating a digital expresion of social status. These mechanisms already work (each in its own niche) and only require globalisation or unification Academy, politics, sports, art, tech - each sphere has its own hierarchy based on verifiable achievements. The project offers to generalise and scale this principle.
2. "Luxury is for those with no real fame - only money" This is a precise hit on the projects target audience. For this category -"rich but not famous; sucessful but not influential" - luxury remains the only accesible way to signal. The project offers an alternative: convert capital not into a yacht, but into a verifiable digital index.
But youre right about Taylor Swift. Even the super-rich are subject to the pressure of accepted status standards. Theres an unwritten level of "required" consumption. Only highly intellectually independent people can ignore these rules. The project gives the majority a legit alternative: meet status expectations without burning resources.
3. "Part of purchases is belief in quality" Agreed, this motivation exists. But you partly answered this question yourself in the comment: "Probably its true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns". Exactly. The project isnt against quality. Its against the status markup - the part of the price not related to function.
Three fears
Fear 1: psychological pressure of the race for a number We experience psychological pressure anyway - regardless of the prize: money, gold, titles, degrees, medals. Pressure is formed not by the prize, but by the principle of life based on struggle. Alas, we are doomed to this pressure. My idea pursues another goal: saving civilization from irrational use of life resources (primarily labor costs - this is the most valuable resource, materials are a thousand times less valuable). Let it convert into digital indexes, not materials and man-hours wasted on an empty symbol.
Fear 2: Wont eradicate luxury You are absolutely right. Especialy at the first stage, a large number of people will do exactly this. There will be a double race. But over time everything will change. Luxury will disappear as a relic of the past. Even today, some people ignore luxury items. Imagine what will happen if we provide people with a legitimate alternative.
Fear 3: legitimizes the idea that "status matters" Status is already legit. The project doesnt create the race, it makes the existing race less wasteful.
Conclusion Your comment is one of the most thoughtful I have received. The main problem of a status symbol is its high price in resources, specifically in man-hours (materials are a thousand times less valuable). My proposal reduces this price to zero.
They have been trying to solve this problem unsuccessfuly for a long time. Traditional measures dont work. The luxury market is only growing: according to Bain & Company, in 2023 it reached €1.5 trillion, and in the long term a growth of 4-6% annually is forcasted. This means the market doubles aproximatly every 12--15 years.
A digital status marker is not just an improvement. This is a fundamentally new solution to an old problem.
Youre absolutely right! I have to admit, I gave a pretty poor example sorry for that stupidity. I see my reply didnt land well with many. got 5 downvotes for it -which I assume are from football fans whose feelings got hurt by that clumsy analogy. So let me be clear: I have great respect for football and its fans, and I didnt mean to offend anyone. Hope you can forgive my blunder!
That said, I do have a question: do you have any concerns about the actual proposal in the article — aside from the football tangent? Because my idea really has nothing to do with football (except for that one bad example). Its solely about the luxury market.
Isn't $500 million a resource? The article explains it. You spend money on a club or on cancer research. Which spending will benefit civilization?
Thank you for the detailed comment. You raise important questions — especially about the psychology of "visible" status and the risk of turning ordinary people into "certified losers". Thats serious.
However,the proposal isn't about imposing a single race for a number on everyone. Its about voluntarily offering an alternative to those tired of burning resources to visualize sucess.
About "invisibility": Youre right — a low score can hurt. But the system doesnt have to be public to everyone. Like a credit score: only those you allow see it (bank, employer, partner). Want to keep your "number" private? Do it. Want to show it off? Your choice.
About "not everyone chases status": Absolutely true and the project doesnt require everyone to participate. It just creates a paralell track for those willing to compete for recognition through verifiable acheivements, not through buying symbols. The rest can continue living as they have.
About nuances of taste: You hit the nail on the head — a single number really cant replace the palette of signals. But the system doesnt have to be monolithic. You can have different "tracks": science, art, technology, social contribution. Each with its own criteria. This isnt simplification, its structuring.
Let's get back to the core.
Not to what we call things, but to the essence of the problem. In my article, I define luxury ONLY to highlight one thing: THE MASSIVE WASTE OF MONEY ON PRODUCING LUXURY.Period. There's no point debating what counts as taste versus excess, or who gets to decide. Regardless of our preferences, civilization spends trillions annually on luxury goods. And those expenditures won't shrink just because we reinterpret the nuances.
So far, no traditional measures (taxes, appeals, restrictions) against luxury production have worked - and they won't. luxury market grows every year. Today its volume is already estimated at €1.5 trillion annually (Bain & Company, 2023). And this isn't my assertion — it's data from the industry itself, openly reporting its own growth (Deloitte, 2023 )
The proposal isn't about arguing over terms or banning anything. It's about creating a voluntary, resource-cheap alternative. If a digital reputation gives the same social weight and access to opportunities as expensive symbols, BUT WITHOUT BURNING MATERIALS AND LABOR -the market will adjust itself. Not by decree, but by interest.
My method is a fundamentally new way to fight the cancerous tumor of civilization's LUXURY MARKET where trillions of dollars of human life resources are burned for nothing