Just the fact that something is rare it becomes desirable. It's so universal in humans, we can say its part of our nature to want what few can obtain. I think it is. And like most things in our nature there are usually Darwinian(Charles Darwin, discoverer of evolution) reasons to explain why we act in such ways.
Let me jump into an example that makes what im going to attempt to say a bit clearer. I went to the museum of natural history at Harvard and saw an exhibit on guppies (these colorful fish) that live in a river. The male guppy fish are colorful for Darwinian reasons. The more colorful you are, the more likely you are to attract a mate. BUT the more likely you are to attract predators as well. Quiet the dilemma? They observed that upstream, where there are less predators, the male guppies were more colorful and downstream they where less colorful to better match their surroundings, to accommodate for the lurking predators .
The point there is that the female guppy determines the color of the male population. The female places a favoritism on colorful male fish (theres some reason i just not sure but i think it said because they deemed the colorful fish more fertile). The more impressive, exclusive or unique the color/color pattern of the male the more likely he is to pass on his genes(the end goal of all living things). The male goes to such great extents that it even puts itself in greater danger to impress the female guppy.
This is observed all over the animal kingdom, especially in mammals and reptiles. Men will bring offerings, do dances, sing songs, acts of aggression towards other males, being a bit bigger or stronger,(previous two probably the most major), showcase extravagant feathers, any many other calls to basically all say the same thing, in the words of Rick Ross "Fuck with me you know i got it" .
Tough thing to admit women, but even just looking around you and throughout history (and the animal kingdom), men have more of the "I want this nothing will get in my way mentality" because we've gone through millions of years of this being conditioned into our genes, it was necessary so men could ensure their genes were passed on.
Let's take the story of "The Great Gatsby" for example. Could you flip the script and put a woman in his shoes? Dedicating her life to amassing a great fortune, becoming a powerful woman through illegal means, to move across the the lake and throw parties in hopes that the now married man of her past would come and she could woo him with his new found power and money to leave his wife and spend their life together? It's hard for me to see that blind, arrogant dedication possessing a woman(OF COURSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS). The same way a male guppy fish (if it had the mind of a human) would see a female guppy fish if it become colorful and put itself in harms way to impress a male.
(I basically used all of the paragraphs above to explain where i think our innate value on scarcity derives)
*Here's what I'm actually here to say*
Woman have installed a strive in men to be better than the other guy through means of obtaining a hard to obtain, scarce advantage. Ultimately leaving us today, living in society, with a inclination to place value on scarce things often with little usefulness or necessity, kind of like the colors on the fish (see how i tied that in there? pretty good aye?). From Jordan's and Gucci Belts to Diamonds and Gold(the useless commodity that somehow is the standard to our monetary system) we've place value on things based on their scarcity instead of their usefulness. But that is minuscule to the effects scarcity has had on our society due to the fact that it is relative by definition.
Because of this we are sure to always have more have not's than haves.
*Example* (clause to the example, you cannot split the cookie)
In room 1 you have ten kids and eleven cookies.
In room 2 you have ten kids and twenty one cookies.
In both rooms there are 9 have not's and 1 have. In room 1 if you have two cookies your a have. In room 2 if you have two cookies your a have not. that proof kind of carries around the world. Who's more satisfied, the richest poor man among the poor, or the poorest rich man among the rich? The richest poor man among
the poor. This primal instinct is so blinding that it can make someone with less than necessary feels like he has it all and someone with more than necessary feel like he has nothing.
How do we overcome this primal instinct? Easy, asses how much is necessary and be satisfied with that amount. This is harder than it seems obviously since almost none of us operate this way (me included, i fall victim to it as well.) The best tool out of it you ask? PERSPECTIVE. Seeing people with much less(especially) and people with more will probably give you a good pin point on where necessary lies on the spectrum.
I try not to buy things that are expensive for reasons outside of their usefulness. If i do buy a 90$ sweater, it's cause i think its worth 90$. But i damn sure wont buy a 300$ belt, or jewelry(ive never bought myself jewelry but have for women in the past girlfriends of course i aint out here trickin on these hoes), never intrigued me in the slightest. i would only buy a wedding ring and thats cause woman are so damn superficial about that type of shit. If i could find me a wife that didnt want no dumbass expensive ring than SHITTTTTTTT till death do us part. Basically I dont like when SCARCITY ALONE makes people want things. I think its a primal instinct and like many of our primal instincts not really beneficial to life in civilization. lol and i basically blame women because Rick Ross wouldnt have theses scarce things (diamonds, gold, cars etc etc) and be screaming fuck with me you know i got it if it wasnt working. Very well at that.
I ask one thing of this post. Separate my origins of scarcity, from the effects of it. I assume most people might disagree on my origin and i cant blame you im no evolutionary biologist, Im just speculating thats where it derives. Well good day sirs.
