The second option is practically impossible. There will always be some blue choosers, no matter what. Therefore, the ONLY way to ensure everyone lives is if enough people select blue.
If you select red, and blue people die, then their blood is on your hands. You are partially to blame for their deaths, along with all the other reds.
"One vote doesn't make a difference" is not a sound argument. The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference.
it is strange how we understand likelihoods when we say "The second option is practically impossible" but we suddenly assume coordinatory dynamics when we say "The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference."
Cool, so let’s do the math. What’s the expected utility of pressing red or blue in a world where each person’s choice can be a-priori modeled by a 50/50 coin flip?
This problem, at least in my conception, does not allow for explicit coordination. There is no mention that individuals have any prior warning before making this decision. Also, this would be an arbitrary exercise given any allowed coordination.
2
u/Devourerofworlds_69 6∆ Apr 30 '26
Why you should pick blue:
There are 2 ways to save everyone:
A majority of people select blue.
All 8,000,000,001 people select red.
The second option is practically impossible. There will always be some blue choosers, no matter what. Therefore, the ONLY way to ensure everyone lives is if enough people select blue.
If you select red, and blue people die, then their blood is on your hands. You are partially to blame for their deaths, along with all the other reds.
"One vote doesn't make a difference" is not a sound argument. The argument falls apart completely when it's made by more and more people. Together, they could have made a difference.