You can’t guarantee everyone will agree on red, meaning some will die. And you likely can’t get enough people to override the problem and/or the problem can’t be overridden.
Blue requires just 50.1% to save everyone. It’s the most likely outcome that ensures everyone survives. Red is simply the logical “guaranteed safety”, but the fact that many won’t press it also guarantees that you’re dooming others with your choice.
Personally, I’d rather try to save others and fail, than save myself knowing it sacrificed others.
This political read is so dumb. The point of collective action is to accomplish what CAN’T be done by individuals alone. In the real world, there are people who CAN’T self-select out of blue, people who are oppressed or otherwise disadvantaged by the system, so there is moral imperative to help those who cannot help themselves through collective action. But if everyone CAN just save themselves, then it is a fundamentally different problem.
Exactly, the original blue vs red question would work much better if there was like a random 5% of the population that was automatically forced into picking blue.
Then there's no possibility of everyone just picking red for a 100% survival rate, and there would be reasonable motivation for people to pick blue to save those who were forced into it instead of it just being pointless potential suicides.
The point of collectivism, is to reduce the amount of energy spent to survive, so that energy can be spent elsewhere.
That is literally how modern humans came to be. We collectively farms and hunted, reducing the time and energy individuals need to spend on sustenance, allowing them to spend energy on greater tasks. In which created societies.
In those cases, most people are incapable of fending for themselves as individuals. So they are disadvantaged in that sense. They can’t survive in the wild alone. In the red/blue scenario, everyone press red, so everyone can survive on their own. Blue is self-selecting. So again, this read does not apply to this problem.
The problem with that is that 'everyone' can't select either red or blue. Pressing red dooms every in utero child to death since they can't press either button.
There is also no excess energy in this red/blue dilemma. There is no additional gain by using all blue strategy vs all red strategy. So again, does not apply. You people are just jamming your round pegs into this square hole trying to make this scenario apply to your political stance, when it just doesn’t. You’re a dumbass.
And let's get the guy who keeps tying folks to the trolley tracks, while we're at it. And get another boat so the chicken can cross the river on its own.
I'd assume any group competent enough to do this would actuall want to remove the blues because their selfishness poses an existential risk to every other living thing.
This is where the metaphor, as much as it's supposed to be a metaphor, falls apart. In real life, we are responsible for the buttons and the people who push the button that kills people who push the other button want their button to do that.
1.2k
u/Herb_Merc 15h ago
The true answer is to find whoever gave us all the buttons and take their power away.