In his 2009 book Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior, Geoffrey Miller explores a Darwinist angle to consumerism and what shoppers try to communicate through their purchasing behavior. In the process, he probes a valid evolutionary perspective for why fakes are enduringly popular and — in his view — a better use of money than buying the authentic counterpart.

(Courtesy of Amazon.com)
Miller, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the University of New Mexico, holds that trying to win the respect and admiration of the opposite sex and compete with sexual rivals drives the most basic of our consumerist impulses.
That desire for the latest lipstick or blush? Miller asserts it’s born from the subconscious desire to look as young and fertile as possible and attract the best quality of men. For men, the draw of a fast car is to signal to women that he’s wealthy enough to spend on nonessential goods, thus advertising himself as an available mate with excessive resources to spend on offspring.
Miller argues that counterfeit status symbols (like purses for women, or Rolex watches for men) are one way to signal wealth to other people without monopolizing monetary resources. If that’s true, it’s no wonder we’re perhaps evolutionarily inclined to buy them.
So what’s the point in shelling out for the real thing? If no one can tell the difference, the value of paying more for an authentic luxury good is limited, Miller says.
“The fake ultimately illuminates and challenges the real, as consumers begin to question why they should pay the ‘real’ product’s premium. Why bother with a real $8,000 3-carat diamond for an engagement ring, when a $4 [cubic zirconia] stone is indistinguishable to most people?” he writes.
One counter-argument would be that it’s emotionally dishonest to give someone a big ol’ CZ while pretending it’s a diamond — the emotional fallout of such a lie could potentially be relationship-ending and thus evolutionarily void.
But for the most part, he continues, ”The fakes reveal what a high proportion of the real products cost: a luxury brand markup, a pure profit premium, a con. The irony is that, with regard to purely pragmatic value, the ‘real’ version of the product is a bigger rip-off than the ‘fake’ version.”
So is imitation the sincerest form of flattery? From an eco point of view, the Darwinist perspective doesn’t take into account ethical standards of production — only the value of signaling biological fitness. But there’s evolutionary purpose in signaling a commitment to ethical ideals as well in an evolved society.
Purchasing a counterfeit designer purse produced in a Chinese sweatshop using child labor announces that the buyer doesn’t give a whit about the origin of her handbag, just that she wants to be mistaken for a woman of high status. And that kind of posturing is perceived in poor taste by the very people she is arguably trying to fool — the ones who can identify a fake from arm’s length.
If you’re looking for an academic angle on why we buy luxury goods, Miller’s well-researched book sheds some (often controversial) light on the power of consumerism and the species-furthering point it serves.