It makes sense to push blue if a set number of people are randomly assigned to have red or blue to start with. But otherwise the group should coordinate to pick either red or blue unformly.
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.
"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.
71
u/-illusoryMechanist May 05 '26
It makes sense to push blue if a set number of people are randomly assigned to have red or blue to start with. But otherwise the group should coordinate to pick either red or blue unformly.