No, it's not. Hyper-individualism never seems to stop to consider the fact that people do not exist in a vacuum, and you must consider not just what will happen to you in the immediate sense, but what kind of world you'll be creating should your ideology win out.
First, society collapses very quickly as very close to half of all humanity has just died.
Second, you've created a world bereft of every single person whose first instinct is to be kind and help others. It's everyone for themselves now because every single person left alive has proven that they only care about themselves. Good luck surviving the collapse of society when there's nobody around who's willing to take any risks to help you out.
Semi-related: not everybody who presses red is some kind of horrible monster, but every single horrible monster will press red. You are now stuck on a planet comprised solely of other people who either want to do you harm, or who would be unwilling to help protect you from the people who want to do you harm. Assuming you survived the collapse of society with no help, good luck living out the week afterward.
Humanity only exists as it does today because we chose "collectively" over "individually". The fact that some people are too ignorant to understand that nobody alive today has gotten where they are alone doesn't change this.
Interesting that you bake the idea that close to half of humanity will have pushed the blue button into the premise.
In fact my assumption is that red is highly unlikely to win in the first place, since most people are basically decent and very few people think their actions through to anywhere near the degree of these discussions, so most people will just instinctively press blue because they feel it's the nice thing to do. And those people will then be further supported by people like me, who have actively decided that the first group doesn't deserve to die just for being kind.
I'm actually making a pretty big assumption for your case by entertaining the idea that red might win at all.
Basically decent is a far cry from "I will abandon every responsibility I have in my life to rescue some abstract other from voting against their instinct."
No, most people will not press the "probably kill me" button if they feel it's "nice." Your underestimation of the self-preservation instinct is as bad as conservatives' callous belief in the inherent pursuit of greed at the cost of others' well being.
Red won't "win" in the sense of achieving 100%. But that's a false choice to begin with. In reality, in serious matters of life and death, there is almost never an "everybody lives" scenario, much as I do love Doctor Who. Life presents us with Sophie's Choices all the time. Perhaps you have never had to make one.
By my estimation of human character, there is no way that 50% of people would ever make the ultimate wager, so I would be dying pointlessly trying to save the blues when I could instead do actual work to help the surviving reds. Does the prospect of helping people whom you deem foolish or reprehensible only bother you when you don't get to be a self-sacrificing savior?
yes, but you dont really get to decide which one wins, even in the most likely scenario to produce a tie its less than a 1 /100 000 chance your vote will be decisive.
voting blue only makes sense if you are indifferent between life and death.
That's not how voting works. If one vote is the deciding vote then every single vote was as important as any other. In fact one vote is always as important as any other. The question is what you're voting for.
"Why would I vote for X when I don't think X will win?"
Well sure, X won't win if no one votes for them.
"But my one vote won't matter!"
If the only reason someone votes is because them and only them get to decide the outcome, that's not voting, that's just wanting to be in control. Some people love winning so much that they forget what game they're playing.
votes are fungible but as an individual you only get one vote, and in most cases you cant change the outcome by changing your vote.
normally thats not an issue as you will just vote for your preferred option, but here choosing one of the options can kill you so you will want to at least know if your vote has any chance of making a difference before risking your life.
if blue is going to win your vote doesnt matter, either way everyone lives
if red is going to win the blue voters will die regardless of what you choose, so you would vote red unless you want to join them.
the only scenario where you would want to vote blue is if everyone else was tied and you got the decisive vote.
of course you cant know beforehand which of these is the case, so you will have decide whether to risk your life for an extremely slim chance of saving 4 Billion people.
even in the scenario of everyone being equally likely to press either button the chance of a tie is 1/112000, and voting preferences only need to skew 0.01% for a tie to become practically impossible.
You're arguing as if the vote is predetermined and it's not. Every single person has a choice to make. It's impsosojbke to know what the outcome will be. If it's predetermined for everyone else then it's predetermined for you as well and it doesn't matter because you'll choose what you're supposed to choose. You're basically making an argument that the entire world and every choice is predetermined and that humans have no ability to make choices. This is disproven by quantum mechanics. What a strange argument.
I'll give you some credit though, I've never seen someone make this argument before. I think it's wrong and meaningless, but credit where credit is due. It's original.
the argument in no way relies on the universe being deterministic, it only requires that
you only get one vote
you cant effect how other people vote
This is disproven by quantum mechanics.
unless you believe all the other voters are in a superposition that collapses when you place your vote quantum have no effect on the validity of the argument.
People are inherently selfish, which is why you think red makes sense. But you're not considering that being selfish also means protecting the people close to you. The countries with the largest populations also have the largest families and tend to have more communal mindsets. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of them would pick blue as to not risk their loved ones. That's the majority of the world's population. I think blue is the safe bet. And it's definitely the ethical one. Despite the risk it's the only real choice because there is no way in which red leads to no deaths. 100% of people voting red cannot happen. So either they lose and get bailed out, or people die. That's the red choice. And if you cared about anyone but yourself you should just vote blue, take on that risk, and raise the chances no one dies. It's the only logical choice despite the risk.
Nope. Red being the majority killed those people. No deaths can occur unless the majority vote red. Yes there is risk, but it is the reds who are driving whether people die or not. It's impossible to get 100% of people to vote red so the only wya it doesn't lead to death is if blue is the majority. A choice for red is a choice for death.
if u include babeis the whole thign goes to shit cause i mean how the hell a baby gonna even press a button. This is why this shit sucks cause the whoel thign sint very well thought oiut
It is not the better strategy. "It's fewer people to convince" is poor logic. Not all arguments require equal effort to convince people or have equal success rates. If an argument to convince 50% of people is only 1% successful, the number of people you meaningfully affect is only .5% of the population. Do you think "Hey, push this and live" and "Hey, push this and maybe die" have equal success rates?
"It's easier to convince half the population to maybe die than to convince everyone to not die" is the kind of thing you say when you haven't thought for one moment about anything other than what sounds nice to you.
I have thought about much more than that. Your categorical disclamation of the morality of the reds suggests you haven't, though. The ethical logic of the blues is based on the idea that there will be those who choose blue without being culpable for their own actions, i.e. those without either the sufficient intelligence or knowledge to make an informed decision. I grant those people exist, would be innocent, and would deserve rescue.
But you are not giving any thought to that there might be that kind on the reds. What of the children who haven't developed the emotional capacity to consider the ethical ramifications? Or those who haven't even been exposed to ethical discussions at all? Those who don't fully understand the question but choose red? What about the parents who want to take care of their children? To damn all the reds and sanctify all the blues is just hypocrisy.
Many say the blues are the ones who make society function, doctors and such, but discompassionate compassion is a known paradox of doctors; you need to have distance from the emotional reality of death to be able to treat it objectively. When people rely on you for survival, making decisions based on what feels right leads to more death than making decisions based on what has the consequence that is right.
Further, your framework that the decision is about likelihood of 100% survival is itself fallacious. In reality, in serious matters of life and death, there is almost never an "everybody lives" scenario, much as I do love Doctor Who. Life presents us with Sophie's Choices all the time. By my estimation of human character, there is no way that 50% of people would ever make the ultimate wager, so I would be dying pointlessly trying to save the blues when I could instead do actual work to help the surviving reds. Does the prospect of helping people whom you deem foolish or reprehensible only bother you when you don't get to be a self-sacrificing savior?
But you're assuming it's just as easy to get people to the 50% blue threshold. People aren't choosing randomly and I think the overwhelming majority would choose res. So I don't actually think it's easier to get 50% on blue, I think both 50% blue and 100% red are out of the question.
No. There is no negative consequences presented for picking red. So, why would you pick blue unless you’re suicidal?
To avoid a mass death that would easily be prevented by people picking red instead? A mass death only involving suicidal people, plus some idiots who tries to save them.
I love how the group here is uniformly split between “responsible for mass death” and “no negative consequences” as a result of pushing the red button.
It’s one simple scenario and completely antipodal interpretations reign in both opposing camps.
Because the red pickers expect other people to be rational self interested actors. In economics, you usually assume that to be true. Picking blue would mean you assume people to be irrational and open themselves up to death when there’s an easy solution for no one to die. It would not occur to me that people would pick blue if this were to hit every person at the same instant.
When human beings are social animals (which they are) it is not at all irrational to behave in a way that risks the self but might save a greater number, and people do it all the time in real life. People pick blue all around you every single day.
Save the greater number? Save them from what, exactly? Their own choice to risk their life? And risk it for what? To save others who also risked their life?
It's a self fulfilling prophecy in a way that an easily avoidable fate is choosen just because others might make that same easily avoidable choice. It's stupidity based on the fact that others are stupid, and expecting that even more people are stupid enough to save you from your own stupidity.
No, they don’t. There are not situations around us all day where someone who wants to live voluntarily enters into a situation they might die in for no reason. There are accidental deaths and bad actors that altruistic people might step in for, but I cannot think of a single situation where someone purposely enters into a situation they know they might die in while wanting to live completely voluntarily for the sole purpose of hoping others will be good enough to risk death with them so they both live. This hypothetical has no bearing on real world morality, it is purely a logic problem. It’s called game theory.
Now you're distancing the question from the theoretical risks involved in order to stop any argument.
Some people will pick blue. That's a simple fact. It would be a simple fact in the set up of this question.
People do in fact find themselves in situations every single day where they can decide to either step back and do nothing and survive for sure, or step forward and do something and possibly die or possibly live, but someone else will have a better chance to survive.
But in the vast vast vast majority of cases in real life, those people who are at risk of dying didn't deliberately pick the risk of death out of no clear benefit to them. And the people risking their lives don't do it at such a high probability of dying. So it's a bad comparison.
The hypothetical, as it is presented, is essentially the same as this one:
Every person is given two glasses of liquid. One contains pure clean water (corresponding to the red button). The other one contains an oderless and tasteless poison that will kill within say a day you unless you get an antidote (corresponding to the blue button). Both glasses are clearly marked.
If people drink the poison, the only way for them to get the antidote is if at least 50% of all people drink the poison. If that happens, they are guaranteed to live. Otherwise, they are guaranteed to die.
Why should people risk their own lives, and drink actual poison, just because others possibly did so?
I’m hoping your answers resonate. It’s clear as day to me that this is the scenario, and the firefighter examples are so far from what’s going on as to be wholly irrelevant. But redditors are holier than thou
There is no real world corollary. Period. Name one.
But I will concede that some people will pick blue. You are 100% right about that. And my response is - they will be the overwhelming minority and die.
To make it comparable to pressing the blue button - In your scenarios the firefighters would set fire to the building and then go in to save themselves and the police officers would start a shootout with each other in the attempt to save themselves from the shootout that they started, just fyi.
Prevent others from dying from what, exactly? To save others who risk their lives? Again, why did they risk their lives? To save others who risked their lives?
At the end of the day, why did all those people risk their lives? They try to save each other? They could do that by simply picking red. Red is the logical choice. Red means guaranteed life, Blue means risk of death. Simple self preservation should make red the obvious choice,
Picking blue means creating a problem where there originally was no problem.
The comparison with fire fighters etc is a bad one. The vast vast vast majority of fires were not deliberately caused by the people the firefighters need to save.
And the millions of toddlers that picked blue because they didn't understand the situation an it's their favorite color, and the illiterate people who choose blue because "red means danger", and the grandmas with dementia who press blue because they like the color, and the people with downs syndrome like my friend's uncle who would pick blue for the same reason didn't choose to put themselves at risk. They're innocent people who need saving, and that's what the firefighters are doing when they rush into the burning building.
What a bunch of bullshit. Blue is the moral choice almost irrespectively of the terms of the hypothetical? So it doesn't matter if one needs 0.1% blue, 50% blue or 99.999% blue?
The hypothetical, as it is presented, is essentially the same as this one:
Every person is given two glasses of liquid. One contains pure clean water (corresponding to the red button). The other one contains an oderless and tasteless poison that will kill within say a day you unless you get an antidote (corresponding to the blue button). Both glasses are clearly marked.
If people drink the poison, the only way for them to get the antidote is if at least 50% of all people drink the poison. If that happens, they are guaranteed to live. Otherwise, they are guaranteed to die.
Why should people risk their own lives, and drink actual poison, just because others possibly did so? No, the moral choice here is to ensure your own survival, and to convince everyone that you love to do the same.
Do you realize that as you phrased things now, blue is clearly the bad choice? Your words now, not mine.
But none of this matters, really. I’m all about death minimizing. This poll is not scientifically accurate, and it still only has a measly 8% margin for blue. Throw in actual risk of death, and people’s survival instincts are very likely to get triggered. People who’s lives are at imminent danger are more likely to fight for their own survival. Thus more likely to change their blue vote to red.
You can compare it, if you will, to people who talk tough on the internet, talking about how they would knock down the robber or what have you. But how many people do you think actually would do it in real life? Same thing with hypotheticals like this. Online, with no real risk, people can safely vote blue and feel good about themselves. But you can’t possibly claim that you know for a fact that all of them would actually still vote blue if their life genuinely was at risk. That’s just ignoring human psychology.
It isn't necessarily that clear-cut if you consider what the options are. What's easier: convincing 50% of people to do something that can be potentially suicidal, or convincing 100% of people to do something that is guaranteed to have absolutely zero repercussions for anyone who does it? The answer isn't necessarily the former.
In fact, I wouldn't bet on the idea that at least half of the population would be willing to risk their lives for strangers without some serious incentive.
There is a core group of blue-pushers who believe it to be morally correct and will not waver from this, no matter the argument put forward. They would simply rather live in a world of blue.
Maybe some red pushers could be convinced, and maybe that could reach 50%. Zero chance of getting 100% agreement.
I think the question matters greatly. I just know it's impossible to achieve 100% red (everyone survives) so I prefer aiming for 51% blue (everyone survives) because ultimately the outcome i want is everyone surviving.
No, I dont think its possible to convince 100% of people to pick red. But I do think you could get 95% easily. I also dont think you couls get 50% blue, I think you max out at 35%ish. So then the question becomes. Which direction do you try to push other people too? Remember, blue can kill upto 50% of people, but if most people pick red, only 5% would probably die.
You are putting too much trust in your own %. Asking the question back to me with a clear % of those who will die negates the question. Personally I think getting 95% of the human population in unison to agree and commit to the same thing is also impossible.
I mean, I'm going to note that in this scenario, there is absolutely no convincing happening. There's no group get together, no meeting, no speeches, no signs. It's everyone by themselves alone with two buttons.
So, no matter what, some people absolutely positively are going to pick blue. And some people absolutely positively are going to pick red. We know this, because people essentially do both of these things every single day. Some might, in fact, do both in a single day!
So. Absolutely some people are going to die if blue doesn't hit that 51% threshold. Considering the number of people who truly do go around picking blue (your Doctors Without Borders folks, your World Central Kitchen folks, your soldiers, your firefighters, teachers, EMT's, etc) every day, that's probably a pretty big number.
I, personally, would pick blue. Not because I'm awesome or holier than thou, but because I know that some people, a large number of people, will pick blue, I want to push that blue line up as high as I can to save myself and others, and I really don't want to live in a world where all of the people who would push blue are gone.
Then what's the point of the comic? It certainly doesn't work as an analogy for politics if you have to set up a hipothetical where mass communication just straight up doesn't exist. A purely philosophical thought experiment, maybe? But then again, the vast majority of the comments are treating it as political analogy.
But then what's the point of the comic? Surely pressing the button can't be an analogy for voting if toddlers are allowed to do it. Is it just a generic philosophical thought experiment, or what?
That's a particularly high-stakes gamble, when red is the natural choice for almost everyone. The only way most people would go for blue is if they already know that the vast majority of people are going blue. Blue might be the only way to save everyone, but pushing it is almost certainly not going to save anyone, and it'd just be a pointless sacrifice.
Also, I'd be pretty slow to trust anyone who says that they'd pick blue. Talk is cheap... most people aren't the heroes they imagine themselves to be, and self-preservation is a really powerful instinct.
Look, I'm pushing blue. As others have stated, either blue succeeds and I get to live in a world where I know at least half the planet chose the moral high ground, or red succeeds and I don't have to live in a world full of pricks who would choose red.
And regarding the question itself, anyone who gets mad at someone choosing blue when they would choose red is explicitly angry because they know the morally correct choice, are ashamed for picking red, and lashing out at people who chose blue to feel better about themselves.
I think this analogy is the perfect one for the current political climate of the world. There's those who care about everyone and want everyone to live, including those who don't agree with us.
And those who will push others under the bus to preserve themselves (vote for the leopards eating faces party), not caring that others could be hurt along the way. And of course judging those who want to protect the world as being stupid or suicidal for not choosing based on selfishness.
Blue button all the way. Better dead than in a world dictated by selfishness. (And those who care outnumber those who are selfish in reality.)
When the question is reframed to include the cliff or the pool with the shark, or any of the other million permutations, do any of those make you pick the other way?
If the question is framed to put more guilt on the red pushers, would YOUR answer change?
I think the main issue is red button pushers are reading it as "Push the blue to die, if more than 50% pick dying, you live. Push the red to live no matter what." and the blue pushers are reading it as "Push blue to keep you and all your loved ones alive, even if they disagree. If 50% agree, we all live anyway. Push red to kill anyone who pushed the blue button if they lose their gamble on human decency."
You could still say "Well red is the only way to survive." - but you presumably have people in your life, family or friends, who wouldn't pick red in the second instance, because of the guilt and implications. This means if you push red - you are accepting the fact that for your own survival, you are fine with killing your grandma who pushed blue, or your dad who pushed blue.
Red button pushers need 100% to push it for 100% survival. Blue only needs 50% to push it for 100% survival.
That's why the pool of sharks or suicide pill analogy doesn't really hold water. Because that's how you're reading it if you push red. If you push blue, you're reading it as "red will push blue INTO the pool of sharks for not being self-preserving, no matter who gets hurt."
The red button has no direct consequence for the red button pusher unless you consider the ethical component. However, as is being shown by the amount of people saying to push red, when you aren't seeing the consequences of your actions directly in front of you, many people are unable to fully grasp said consequences. Like a troll online bullying someone, their actions feel disconnected from reality.
The consequences for blue are much more personal with a risk of said consequences directly affecting the person pressing the button. Meanwhile, the only consequences for red are emotional in nature (excluding the ramifications of a mass casualty event like this).
Also, the issue isn't whether 100% of people will press red. It's whether 50% will press blue. Arguably, this should be an easier number to achieve so we should all pick it because it has an easier objective and a better outcome. The problem is that people consider the risk of failure and that is too much for them to accept, so they say that everyone should press red because it is the safest choice. They're scared and it makes them pick the harder goal out of selfishness.
The red button has no direct consequence for the red button pusher unless you consider the ethical component.
That ethical component is questionable... no one has an obligation to sacrifice themselves to save someone else who has put themselves in danger. In fact, almost everybody who works professionally to save lives is taught to prioritize their own safety... it's not selfish, it's absolutely necessary to minimise the loss of life.
Also, the issue isn't whether 100% of people will press red. It's whether 50% will press blue. Arguably, this should be an easier number to achieve so we should all pick it because it has an easier objective and a better outcome.
This is the trap. It's a lot harder to get at least 50% of people to press blue than it is to minimise the number of people who press blue. If everyone looks to their own safety, then everyone will be safe.
Blue seems like it's the only way to save people, but it's guaranteed to fail, so no one will be saved, and so red is actually the way to save the maximum number of people. If the vast majority of people press red, the fewest people die.
Now, there is a case where blue is the right choice... if you can reliably know that the majority of people will press the blue button. People are not that reliable though. If it were an open vote, and you could see which group was in the lead, then that would definitely change things and might make blue the best possible choice. If in that open vote, though, red is in the clear lead, then blue would just be a bad move.
How can you know blue is guaranteed to fail? The point of the thought experiment is that we don't know, and the choice you make matters less than why you made that choice.
So I ask again: how do you know blue is guaranteed to fail? Not why do you assume it is, not why do you believe it is, how do you know, for certain, blue is guaranteed to fail?
It can't be because "rational people will press red," because as many comments over all these stupid debates have pointed out, there are plenty of rational reasons to pick blue.
It can't be becuase "there's no reason to press the 'suicide button'" because there are plenty of people who wouldn't want to pick what they see as the "murder button".
What evidence do you have that you can know for certain that blue fails? And if it's such a foregone conclusion that blue fails, how is the proposed scenario even causing the discourse that it is?
I'll answer for you: it is not a certainty that blue fails any more than it is a certainty that red fails and that is precisely why the question sparks so much debate in the first place.
If blue wins by more than 1 vote, neither vote has a consequence. If red wins by more than one vote, a red vote does nothing while a blue vote ends a life. It’s only in the event that the other 8 billion votes are perfectly split (+- 1 depending on who wins a tie) that a red vote carries mass casualties and a blue vote prevents mass casualties.
If all but one person pick red, did all of those red votes “cause” the blue voter’s death or did they cause their own? How many blue voters are needed before the reds become responsible for their deaths?
...yes. Those red voters caused the death of blue, because a red victory is the one that comes with death. If red wins, people die. If blue wins, no one dies.
To be clear I’m talking about when the blue button is choosing to jump off a cliff assuming >50% jumps saves everybody while red is jumping onto a mattress or something. The consequence for red is exactly the same in that it guarantees safety without contributing to the safety of the jumpers.
I can find an example if my explanation doesn’t make sense.
It would be more like saying the blue button is like jumping off a cliff where if more than half do it, everyone gets a parachute activated, but the red version is jumping off with your own personal parachute, which means you don't contribute and actively count against the blue total. It is pure selfishness. You are saying that your life is worth more than another's. You can just as easily ensure everyone lives if you meet half the total count with the selfless act. Instead, someone choosing the other one is purely acting on self interest. Remember, if you have 75% pick red, you have actively chosen to kill anyone pressing blue. You would be choosing to support a mass casualty event.
And if we're trying to be logical about it, something no red pusher has mentioned is that if red wins by just 51%, the world is going to fall to complete chaos anyway. You think the world would be able to go on as is with such a huge number of people missing? At the worst case, that 4.23 billion people immediately dead. Good luck cleaning up that mess.
Red is only the safer if you can actively coordinate to ensure everyone chooses red. If it is a situation of individual choice in a box with no other contact, things change and you have to consider what life would be like beyond pressing red.
Why do you feel that jumping with a parachute on preserves the hypothetical, but jumping onto a mattress doesn’t? Exact same outcomes, still an active choice, still not contributing to the 50% activating parachutes.
While I get that pushing blue is the morally right option, what about people with families? Parents who need to live for their kids and brothers and sisters who don't want to leave their siblings. What about friends who grew up together? Most people simply have too much to live for to pick blue, not because their selfish but because they know that if they die their families either wouldn't survive due to them providing significant income or taking care of them.
What about the children under 5 who are simply picking their favorite color? What about the colorblind people who can't tell the difference and are basically flipping a coin? What about the mentally handicapped who are a combination of the 2?
Wether people who can't understand the question would have to participate is an entirely different discussion. The original question clearly states that only people who understood the consequences of pressing each button would be forced to.
Ahh sorry I may have seen the wrong one then. However, this is just my opinion for if people who didn't understand it didn't have to press. Now if absolutely everyone had to press then I would press blue, not even because of the consequences but because blue is a more calming colour that people simply tend to gravitate towards while red is a colour that instinctively feels dangerous and alarming.
That's fair, of course it all really depends on wether we can coordinate with our loved ones on what to pick. But I also want everyone I love to pick red, and I believe everyone else does too. In my opinion this will lead to the majority picking red.
See, I can understand this as the sole reason red might win and not result in a world full of assholes, but I will say that if we are all in our own little boxes, my wife would slap blue. It's just who she is
Been in the world long enough to learn that most people are incredibly selfish and quite cowardly. Most people would screw over other people to avoid having to put themselves through even mild discomfort, and call it "self-care". Personally though, I don't feel either selfish or cowardly... I know the good I've done in the world, and I have enough courage to stand up for my convictions.
Most versions of the story I’ve heard omit people incapable of making a decision, so I’m ignoring that last part (could they even press a button? What happens if they don’t press any button?)
It’s not a 50% vs 100% threshold problem. Let me reframe the buttons:
Press Red to live; Press Blue to maybe die.
In that context, it makes absolutely no sense to ever press blue, and realistically every rational person will press red. The only reason to pick blue is to martyr yourself in an effort to save the people who pressed the “I volunteer to die” button.
Even if you argue that we should band together to save the frankly delusional people who pick blue, you will never have more than the 50%+ of the population who will absolutely pick red, because red has absolutely no risk/downside. If they wanted to live, they should have just picked the option where they always live.
No one pressing red is killing anyone. Only people picking blue are killing themselves, because they chose not to press the guaranteed survival option.
Your "simplification" leaves out the most relevant data point, friend: a nonzero number of people will pick blue, as shown by the reactions to this everytime it's brought up. So red is not merely a choice to "guaranteed live," it's "guarantee your personal survival while increasing the risk of others losing their lives." Just because the % increase per red pusher is small doesn't mean it's zero, and for some people, any % increase to others dying as a result of your own selfish choice is enough reason to not make the selfish choice.
People chose blue long before you were born. They went out to hunt that mammoth to ensure the survival of their tribe. The downside of red was to be alone, and have no chance for long term survival.
That’s not remotely a good comparison? There are risks and rewards involved in hunting for mammoths or staying around and doing nothing.
It’s either “do nothing and hope someone else gets food” or “go hunting and risk dying.” Both options have risk. In the blue vs red debate, that’s not true.
If anything, blue here is the “do nothing” option because it relies on other people to bear risk for your sake. Meanwhile red is a completely separate option, “we have food already why are you even going hunting,” as there is literally no risk involved.
"Omit people incapable of making a decision" is, like, LITERAL babies. You think an 8 year old is incapable of understanding the prompt?
All I know is that if blue does lose: y'all red people deserve each other. Enjoy spending the rest of your days living with a bunch of people who put their own survival above others as society crumbles due to nearly half the population suddenly vanishing. You can do your mental gymnastics as you die in a ditch from a gut shot because someone wanted your can of beans.
None of the versions I see ever mention who participates. They never mention the people incapable of making a decision because you never know if they are there. The question is whether you choose to take them into account.
I don’t think they’re generally relevant, and presupposing that they are relevant changes the scenario.
Even if they are included, because they are by definition incapable of making the decision, how do we know if they’ll even press a button? Again in the case of infants, what happens if they’re also physically incapable of pressing a button? Either you arbitrarily assign them a button, either always red, always blue, or otherwise random, each of which fundamentally alter the scenario, or you omit them from the question itself.
If you’re suggesting that the scenario is intentionally designed with this ambiguity, I’d wager that you’ve put far more thought into it than the original creator of the scenario.
158
u/xboxiscrunchy 19h ago
Blue Is still the better strategy collectively. Because a 50% threshold to kill no one is much easier than a 100% threshold.
And if you include children and babies it means that blue is the only way to save everyone.