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):