The following are examples. Please edit the below so that your disclosure is accurate:
- This essay is an adapted and expanded version of my original 2013 article published on WordPress. AI assistance was utilized exclusively for the translation from Russian to English.
The production of luxury goods is an irrational waste of the vital resources of civilization.
What is Luxury?
The dictionary defines luxury as something not essential but conducive to pleasure and comfort; something expensive or hard to obtain; sumptuous living or surroundings. In other words, a luxury good is an expensive but non-essential item. Luxury is also often associated with an excess of comfort and the unjustified squandering of wealth.
However, I propose to expand this definition:
Luxury refers to goods or services that are not essential to human beings, which incorporate superfluous functionality and design features created solely to increase the price. The purpose of this price inflation is to artificially restrict access to the item and transform it (partially or completely) into a symbol of wealth and success.
At the same time, luxury should not be confused with comfort: within reasonable limits, comfort is a basic human need. Only its extreme manifestations and excesses become luxury.
Luxury Around Us
The category of luxury goods includes absolutely any jewelry made of precious metals and gemstones; automobiles whose price exceeds a reasonable maximum; housing whose area is excessive; furniture manufactured from unjustifiably expensive woods, as well as branded clothing where the price is driven solely by the designer's name.
Today, elements of luxury have penetrated almost every sphere of consumption. A vast number of everyday goods contain non-functional additions designed purely to raise the price tag.
- The Kettle Example: An ordinary mass-produced electric kettle can cost anywhere from $15 to $600. Yet, the basic functionality and the quality of materials used do not fundamentally differ. Practical value and quality justify a price increase up to approximately $30–$60. Any further increase in price serves only one purpose: to restrict access to the item through the use of ultra-expensive materials or superfluous design elements.
One might object that there is no such thing as "superfluous" design, and that beauty in design costs money. But beauty in design is a relative concept. Ultimately, a design is attractive when it is closely tied to practical utility and generally accepted values. If a $600 kettle glittering with gold leaf appears beautiful to us, it is only because a high value of gold is embedded in our consciousness. If the value of precious metals were to suddenly disappear, this object would lose all its "beauty".
Why Do People Strive for Luxury?
Why do humans need luxury goods if they are not required for physical survival? The fact is that luxury fulfills a crucial social function. By demonstrating the owner's level of success and social status, it visually defines their significance in society.
Money acts as a marker of success, but others cannot see a person's bank account directly. Therefore, people are forced to materialize their income, transforming it into status clothing, cars, or accessories to declare their worth.
Determining social significance is a basic evolutionary mechanism that helped humanity evolve, select mates, and form business alliances. For a long time, luxury remained the only visual expression of personal success. This connection is so deeply rooted in our psyche that a person can derive pleasure from owning an expensive item even if they use it in secret from everyone else (which completely nullifies its original function — the demonstration of status).
The Main Problem: A Colossal Waste of Resources
The problem lies not in the human need to confirm or demonstrate status itself, but in the wasteful manner in which it is done. Today, the visualization of personal significance requires converting a massive portion of human labor and resources into expensive, labor-intensive, yet completely socially useless symbols.
- A Lesson from History (Ancient Egypt): A great civilization largely exhausted itself by squandering colossal resources on the construction of stone pyramids. For centuries, the labor of millions of people and tons of food were sacrificed to stone symbols of prosperity, which ultimately led to the decline of a once-mighty state.
- A Modern Example (Football Clubs): In the UK, the government allocates about $500 million a year to cancer research. At the same time, private individuals can invest an equivalent amount ($500 million) into purchasing a single football club. Which investment holds greater value for humanity? The benefit of finding a cure for cancer is obvious to everyone. The purchase of a club, however, brings no benefit to sports in general, nor to the club itself (which is capable of developing through its own revenues). The buyer merely acquires the status of "owner of an elite group of athletes," placing them among the chosen few. But if this billionaire or their relatives ever face an incurable disease, the erroneous and absurd nature of such spending will become apparent even to them.
- The Automobile Example: A Bentley automobile costs from $250,000 to $2,500,000. Are the expenditures of labor and materials on its creation justified when compared to a Toyota Corolla or a Prius, which cost from $25,000 to $35,000 and are practically equal in terms of basic comfort, reliability, and, most importantly, functionality? Common sense suggests that the lion's share of a premium car's cost is a payment for a symbol of status.
The labor of millions of workers, engineers, and the infrastructure supporting them (doctors, teachers, insurance companies) ultimately crystallizes into an "elite marker". Humanity spends billions of working hours and trillions of tons of valuable resources just to perform one simple function — demonstrating a person's social significance.
A Digital Alternative: How to Replace Luxury?
Can luxury be eradicated? Yes, if we can find a cheaper and more effective alternative for demonstrating a person's social significance.
In the digital age, the best replacement for cumbersome and expensive trinkets could be a computer-generated social index (a numerical indicator) assigned to a individual. Similar algorithms already partially operate in the banking sector for credit scoring. Creating a global system to evaluate social significance is a complex but entirely feasible task.
How Might This Work?
- Evaluation Criteria: The calculation of this indicator should incorporate a wide variety of useful data: educational level, work experience, number of inventions and innovations, scientific publications, real contribution to societal development, and, among other things, the level of honestly earned income. This will allow for an objective assessment of an individual and incentivize the development of qualities beneficial to society as a whole.
- Advantages of a High Index: A high score should grant the owner access to various opportunities and tools (ranging from workshops to research laboratories, institutes, factories, or publishing houses — depending on qualification), as well as provide certain privileges, respect, and prestige in society.
- Visualization: In the electronic age, making this indicator visible and accessible for verification by others will present no difficulty at all.
- Absence of Coercion: This new value system must be voluntary. Everyone will be free to choose how to spend their money and effort — pursuing expensive things or improving their digital status, which opens up new horizons.
- Crucially, it must be understood that digital status is not an obligation, but merely an alternative to existing, traditional material methods of determining human social significance. This system does not forbid or control the production and purchase of luxury goods.
Conclusion
To many, the idea of replacing material luxury with a digital index may seem fantastic and unfeasible. This is natural, since the cult of luxury has been embedded in human mentality for millennia, being inseparably linked to power, security, and success.
However, the allure of luxury is an illusion fed only by the absence of alternatives. Human nature is incredibly plastic. We instantly adapt to new conditions and rules of the game if they offer tangible psychological and material advantages.
As soon as society accepts new rules in which luxury has no place, our worldview will change. In a world where a person's status is determined simply, transparently, and cheaply, luxury will disappear on its own. This will free up colossal resources that can be directed toward accelerating scientific and technological progress and genuinely improving the life of every human being.
Risks of the Digital Alternative and Their Refutations
Risk 1: The Threat of Totalitarianism and a "Chinese Social Credit" System
Possible Objection 1: Some might think that evaluating people through computer programs will inevitably lead to a digital dictatorship and the restriction of freedoms, where the state punishes any dissent.
Refutation: Any restriction of freedoms is possible only in totalitarian or authoritarian states where there is no feedback loop. The absence of a feedback loop is the primary and only restriction on freedom. Freedom is determined not by technical tools, but by the political and physical dependence of the people on the ruling elite.
Data collection infrastructure and surveillance networks in America are developed no worse than those in China, but only in China does this system operate to restrict political freedom and enforce population control. Any tool can be used for good or for ill, but this does not mean we should halt progress and restrict ourselves from creating new tools.
Risk 2: Hacker Attacks on the Digital Status System
Possible Objection 2: The system of a person's digital status will be breached by hackers to use it for illicit or selfish purposes.
Refutation: I agree that there will certainly be those who wish to hack such a system. However, it is absurd to limit progress out of fear of potential attacks on the system by criminals and lawbreakers. Similar fears were voiced during the transition from paper money to digital currency. Nevertheless, civilization successfully manages this danger, and today it is difficult to imagine banking operations without digital transactions.
Risk 3: Psychological Rejection of a Digital Status
Possible Objection 3: People will not want to switch to an abstract digital status. Humans have a vital need to physically perceive their superiority through expensive material things.
Refutation: This argument overlooks a fundamental property of human beings — the plasticity of our minds. Throughout history, humanity has regularly and easily changed the rules of the game as soon as the new rules proved their evolutionary and material benefit. Consider how quickly children adopt the rules of a new game.
A century ago, status was determined by lineage and title; today, it is determined by the make of a car; tomorrow, it will be determined by a number in a network. If a high digital index provides real, tangible benefits (access to the best laboratories, factories, rights, and opportunities, as well as the respect and recognition of society), our consciousness will instantly adapt to this new reality. The illusory appeal of owning an expensive object will vanish as soon as a person realizes that this object no longer commands respect and prestige.
Furthermore, it must be understood that transitioning to a digital status of human significance is voluntary, not mandatory. It is merely an alternative. Everyone is free to choose the path of development that suits them best.
References:
1. Author's original publication on WordPress (2013). https://qasoft.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/luxury-and-its-impact-on-society/
Primary Source:
Academic & Research Papers:
2. Ghiglino, C., & Langtry, A. (2026). Status substitution and conspicuous consumption. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.07008
3. Frontiers in Psychology (2022). Economic Inequality Increases the Preference for Status Consumption. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.809101/full
4. Journal of Development Studies (2024). Visible Consumption, Income Inequality and Social Comparisons. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220388.2024.2314120
5. Pickett, K., Wilkinson, R., et al. (2024). The Spirit Level at 15. The Equality Trust. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/215026/1/The_Spirit_Level_at_15_2024_FINAL.pdf
6. Annual Reviews (2025). What Has Been Done to Reduce Luxury Consumption? https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-111422-113840
7. OECD (2023). How Green is Household Behaviour? Sustainable Consumption and Production. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-green-is-household-behaviour_9789264171244-en.html
8. Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/87/3/355/1880467
9. TechTrends / Springer (2025). Micro-Credentials and Digital Badges. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11528-024-00940-x
Case Studies & Media:
10. Wikipedia: Luxury Vehicle (Economic baseline and status signaling in transport). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_vehicle
11. Dr. Richard Redding: Pyramids and Protein (Resource misallocation in Ancient Egypt). LiveScience. https://www.livescience.com/28961-ancient-giza-pyramid-builders-camp-unearthed.html 12. Conspicuous Consumption and Asset Signaling Analysis (Video materials):
* Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M-JatMLd-4
* Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tZEdTBqfbw
Another problem with your approach is that right now someone with low status can be invisible. They can still probably afford relatively decent clothes and a normal car, and this says "a regular person". They can live normally and not care much about status.
But when you attach an explicit score to each person's name, a person with low status becomes "a certified loser". They become like untouchables in India. They can no longer hide their low status and be invisible, like just a "normal person". By giving everyone a score, you make everyone very status conscious and this can be psychologically devastating no matter how low or high your status is.
If it's low, you get depressed and feel worthless.
If it's moderate, you're frustrated it's not higher.
If it's high, you're frustrated it's not even higher.
If it's extremely high, you can become narcissistic and think you're better than everyone else.
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'm wondering if you are aware that such alternative symbols already exists in a way? It's just not numerical, it's not one number you can show off.
Many people achieve a lot of recognition, fame, power and influence without showing off wealth with things like jewelry, sport cars, yachts, or designer clothes.
For example, from what I'm aware, here in EA circles, almost no one cares about such wealth related signals. I think the people in circles like this would be famous and influential regardless of what kind of clothes they wear or how expensive their watch or car is. They are recognized for their ideas and for their contributions.
Also, stuff like titles, degrees, etc... this already exists. Academia has its own honors and hierarchy, so is the case for clergy, so is the case in politics, so is the case in sport, music, literature, and pretty much any other endeavor...
Now I see where the luxury might play a role: if you want to show that you're successful, but you're NOT actually famous or influential. You just made a lot of money and want this to be known. In this case luxury does play a role.
But, for a lot of people some desire for luxury is not to explicitly show off their wealth or success, but because they genuinely believe (which might be a mistaken belief) that more expensive stuff looks better on them or is higher quality, and they can afford it. Probably it's true up to a certain point. But very soon you hit diminishing returns. The problem is in finding sweet spot.
There is a saying (which I don't endorse, nor agree with, but maybe there is a grain of truth in it): "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap things". The logic is if you buy the cheapest things, they will likely be low quality, and will break so often, that you'll eventually spend more money buying such cheap things again and again, than if you bought an expensive thing once.
In general I disagree with this logic. I think if you buy standard, non-luxury items, you're getting a very decent product. You don't need to buy luxury to get quality. Maybe only if you bought cheapest, clearly inferior product, the logic could apply to some extent.
In general, I don't know what to think about this.
Your idea, if it worked, and if people accepted it, would save a lot of money that's wastefully spent on luxury. And that would be awesome.
But I have 3 fears:
So I'm afraid that in the end we could end up with 2 parallel races: chasing the number, and still chasing standard luxury. What do you think why celebrities buy luxury stuff? They don't need to prove their success or fame or wealth to anyone. If you're Taylor Swift whole world knows you and how successful you are. And they still spend on luxury nevertheless.
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.
Who knows maybe you're right. I'm not yet convinced it would work or be without side effects, but if people don't like it, they will probably just ignore it, so probably there isn't too much risk in trying. For my sensibilities it sounds a bit dystopian honestly, and kind of entrenches fundamental inequality between people in a very explicit way, tied to money.
Having more money doesn't make someone a better person automatically. I think it's better to have multiple different types of status, rather than just one generalized score that can ultimately be measured through money.
As I said, there is popularity, credentials, reputation, number of followers, influence, titles, all sorts of status. And I think it makes sense to be this way, because different types of status are not commensurable. They are apples and oranges.
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.
So here's where it's going: either you get a system where money can measure your value as 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.
But it is dystopian for a reason, for a big reason: who gets to decide how much certain acts contribute to status? People have fundamentally different moral worldviews. Something that would count a lot in one system of values, might count very little in a different system (or even be considered negative).
IMO, a better way to reduce the consumption of luxury goods is not to validate that they are needed for status signaling and try to replace them with some digital score, but instead to raise the awareness of how wasteful they are and to convince people that they are stupid.
For example a French singer ZAZ has made a song with this message:
https://genius.com/Genius-english-translations-zaz-je-veux-english-translation-lyrics
Now of course, this is just a song. But some sort of larger anti-luxury campaign might bring some more concrete results. The campaign need not just to be moralizing (while this can be a part of it - Peter Singer did well with moralizing and influenced a lot of people), but in addition to that, it can be plain and simple education. Teaching people that you can buy high quality goods without going bankrupt. Teaching people about diminishing returns once you are above certain price range. (but this could also backfire if companies decide to make products that used to be "standard" inferior - in that case you would also need to boycott companies who do it)
But, in the end, I'm also wondering if eliminating spending on luxury would really be good for the world? I mean, it certainly would, if people donated such money to effective charities instead. But there's no guarantee they would do it. And then, you also need to consider effects on welfare, economy and environment.
After some discussion with AIs about this, my conclusion is that stopping spending money on luxury could have:
Positive effects on welfare - more utils. (Money redirected to where it can produce more utility)
Probably positive effect on economy - more jobs, more growth, more productivity, but certain industries would suffer. Another thing worthy of considering is that certain luxury industries are on cutting edge of technology, which can spill into mainstream products eventually.
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.
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.