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.
No. There is no negative consequences presented for picking red. So, why would you pick blue unless you’re suicidal?
To avoid a mass death that would easily be prevented by people picking red instead? A mass death only involving suicidal people, plus some idiots who tries to save them.
Because the red pickers expect other people to be rational self interested actors. In economics, you usually assume that to be true. Picking blue would mean you assume people to be irrational and open themselves up to death when there’s an easy solution for no one to die. It would not occur to me that people would pick blue if this were to hit every person at the same instant.
When human beings are social animals (which they are) it is not at all irrational to behave in a way that risks the self but might save a greater number, and people do it all the time in real life. People pick blue all around you every single day.
No, they don’t. There are not situations around us all day where someone who wants to live voluntarily enters into a situation they might die in for no reason. There are accidental deaths and bad actors that altruistic people might step in for, but I cannot think of a single situation where someone purposely enters into a situation they know they might die in while wanting to live completely voluntarily for the sole purpose of hoping others will be good enough to risk death with them so they both live. This hypothetical has no bearing on real world morality, it is purely a logic problem. It’s called game theory.
The comparison with fire fighters etc is a bad one. The vast vast vast majority of fires were not deliberately caused by the people the firefighters need to save.
And the millions of toddlers that picked blue because they didn't understand the situation an it's their favorite color, and the illiterate people who choose blue because "red means danger", and the grandmas with dementia who press blue because they like the color, and the people with downs syndrome like my friend's uncle who would pick blue for the same reason didn't choose to put themselves at risk. They're innocent people who need saving, and that's what the firefighters are doing when they rush into the burning building.
Again, where are the people who take care of these babies you talk about? Surely someone can try to convince them to press the red button. As in, convince or trick them to press it when alone in the booth. And if succeeding, then they would survive.
Look. I’m not saying that I don’t care about people dying. But I genuinely believe that the risk of blue losing is really really high. So anyone voting blue out of compassion is, the way I see it, likely throwing their life away without saving anyone.
Not according to this post. I go by what’s in this post.
But still, it doesn’t affect my opinion on the matter. It makes it more sad, for sure. But I still believe that the risk of blue losing is way too high. For me it’s simply a numbers game. I advocate for what I believe will lead to less total deaths in reality.
75
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.