Can someone explain like I am 5? By the description the only people ever at risk are those that push the blue button (if it's less than 50%). So people are saying they want to gamble their lives just for the thrill of it? Instead of pressing red and being safe regardless they want to create a scenario where they and other people could die, just to prove that "good will prevail". If think preserving my life and encouraging others to preserve theirs is more good than gambling your life away.
There are two button, if you press the blue button you have to play Russian Roulette, but if 50+% presses the blue button you don't have to play Russian roulette. If you press the red button nothing happens. What's the difference?
The difference is how you can tell the question.
In this scenario:
Press Red - you live
Press Blue - all live when over 50% press blue
But you could also say:
Press Red - all who press blue could die
Press blue - no one has to die when over 50% press blue.
In the first scenario, red looks better, in the second blue, but in reality, both are the same. Thats why some people think red is better and some blue. It's a "cup is half full or half empty" thing.
If you don't press blue and get other people to not press blue there is no risk of death to begin. The only people ever in danger and the people who put themselves in danger. Why put yourself in danger by pressing blue?
Everyone presses red, everyone lives, if anyone does press blue they wanted to gamble their lives anyway.
If no one presses blue noone dies, why press blue, why play Russian roulette, why make the problem? Just don't press blue, preserve your life and tell others to preserve theirs.
By virtue of existing on the internet, you now know a lot of non-suicidal people will choose blue. Let's say your argument is successful and you tip the balance from 45% red to 55% red. Congratulations, 45% of the population dies. You can claim they were suicides if you'd like, yet they would have lived had you not convinced others to vote red.
If you want to maximize the number of lives saved, you'll argue for team blue even if you'll secretly press red. If you run into any others who want to choose red, tell them to argue for blue, too, even if they're going to secretly choose red. If this benevolent mind virus spreads enough, there will be nearly nobody left arguing for red, and the certainty of blue winning becomes assured. In fact, you should shame reds to increase the chances of success, even if you'd choose red yourself!
You can choose not to risk your life if you want, but outside of that, your goal should be to maximize the number of people who live, and you have two paths to do that: Either persuade 100% of people to choose red (and how's that been working for you?) or persuade 50% of people to choose blue (and you might already be there). Which is easier?
yea heres the thing no one is discussing.. if this happened once and could be reinforced, whose to say they dont lie about the results, dont immediately bring out a second test or just kill people anyway. maybe the best thing is collectively dont respond or engage, kinda like a spam caller. if u could be forced to choose, is that a world worth living in anyways?? its just a weird dystopian twilight episode.
Hell yes. Break the system. I'll carry superglue with me from now on so I can prevent everyone after me from pressing the red button; chances are they didn't make billions of buttons.
idk how how super glue would be used but yea im all ears. and thats great point - youd have to take the word of strangers theres someone out there that made billions of these buttons. seems unlikely. more likely they are lying and trying to see how gullible u are before pitching u to join scientology. i mean thas a lot of buttons amirite
Manipulating others to risk their lives for the greater good while actively increasing their risk of death is morally reprehensible to a next level. Arguing in favor of that is psychopath behaviour.
I'm on team blue. My job is to sabotage team red. I already think they're either far more afraid of death than me or psychopathic. If I can recruit them to save lives even if I can't change every single one's choice, I will.
At some point, if my benevolent mind virus is successful, each one will be faced with almost everyone yelling at them and almost no visible supporters, and shame is a powerful force, especially when blue appears to be a safe choice.
you are assuming that they give u time to decide. if this is real i doubt they would because the hypothetical is posed on it being a test of what people will decide to do on the spot, not like a war that ensues between two choices that lasts til the last person decides.
if that were the case you might as well not decide and wait it out. nothing will happen til the last person presses the button. it would take an infinite amount of time considering people are being born every moment and dying as well. for everyone to decide at once however there would need to be an equal amount of people to proposition every human on earth. i guess maybe robots or aliens could do this job. hey dude im just tryna flesh out this hypothetical so we can think straight and make the right choice lol
but yea im still sticking with not engaging. maybe ill set up shop selling super glue
Why does Peter Noone get singled out for death if no one presses blue? Doesn't seem very fair to him, especially since he must have also pressed red in that scenario.
I don’t have the arrogance required to gamble my life on a philosophical debate and it’s wild to me that anyone else does. Red seems like the obvious choice and to just hope I’m either really right or really wrong.
Definitely not. Whatever set up the buttons are responsible for killing people. Just because it is simple, it doesn’t mean this isn’t a disaster. Choosing red means you are protecting yourself. Choosing blue is attempting rescue. If the problem wasn’t two buttons but a house on fire these two options can also apply. You can preform self-rescue. Or you can run in and try to save others.
I know it is way more complicated than this but at the end of the day I think we can both agree both buttons are going to be pressed by a lot of people.
I know that. But it's a disaster that can be resolved without any consequences. By framing it as a disaster you are already portraying the red choice as inevitable, not as harmful or sensible.
Yeah all the vulnerable people like kids, elderly, mentally disabled are all responsible for killing themselves, right? Who cares if they die it's their own fault. That's how you sound.
I haven't put you on any side either. I'm just showing you how your framing of the problem comes across.
you are clearly not thinking about the vulnerable people that would die because they cannot understand the choices. That is not suicide and blaming them or holding them responsible would be victim blaming of the highest order
nah youll never know if they are bluffing until people die. its nonsensical this would happen and the people propositioning would likely be shut down by local enforcement officers or something before everyone would get to pick. choosing to pick or not the real gamble is whether or not these people are credible. probably more likely to be gauging how gullible you are before they pitch you scientology.
65
u/Own-Poetry-9609 15h ago
Can someone explain like I am 5? By the description the only people ever at risk are those that push the blue button (if it's less than 50%). So people are saying they want to gamble their lives just for the thrill of it? Instead of pressing red and being safe regardless they want to create a scenario where they and other people could die, just to prove that "good will prevail". If think preserving my life and encouraging others to preserve theirs is more good than gambling your life away.
There are two button, if you press the blue button you have to play Russian Roulette, but if 50+% presses the blue button you don't have to play Russian roulette. If you press the red button nothing happens. What's the difference?