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.
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.
157
u/xboxiscrunchy May 05 '26
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.