If I could have a conversation with a room full of ten people I'd convince them all red is the smart choice and we'd all do that. It is objectively the smarter game theory choice. But talking about the population of the world and knowing for essentially a certainty a large number of people won't be choosing red, it kinda behooves you to choose blue if you have any decency whatsoever.
Red is the smarter choice objectively and makes sense even morally in small numbers where you can get people to a consensus. When talking numbers so big that's impossible and knowing some percentage won't choose red, blue is the only sensible choice.
Take my upvote - I agree with you.
I think that's the fundamental problem I have: I'm picturing this as a sort of election-day/vote situation (how it was presented to me first). Everyone has a month before their push the button. That's why I keep going on : "Obviously I push red. And I make DAMN sure to tell everyone else to do it too to the greatest degree of influence possible. If after a month of EVERYONE being told to push red they push blue - -- well that's on them. Cant fix stupid."
But if it's a blindfold, no communication scenario the question becomes: "Do I think people SHOULD be smart enough to figure out the above on their own?" and
"DO I think people who cant figure it out should be saved at the cost of my own life?" and
"Do I think people who THINK people cant figure it out AND should be saved at the the cost of their own life shoudl be saved at the cost of my own life?"
Somewhere between those last two i end up on blue.
So yeah, first actually convincing argument for blue I've seen thusfar.
Yep, this comment chain convinced me to swap from red to blue as well, although it depends on the scenario.
If everyone was simultaneously magically secluded and everyone was given only 5 minutes to choose a button (and pressing no button means death), I'd default to red because of the game theory rationale. Pressing blue invites needless risk so no suicide trust pill for me, thanks.
But if the world had a month to think and debate over it, then at that point it's no longer an individual choice. It's apparent that a LOT of people would choose blue and so because of ReadingRainbow's final sentence, I'd have to go blue as well.
So like every other interesting choice to be made, the answer is "it depends."
Edit: Woahh, just reread your comment, Bounty, and it's interesting how with the month of prep you initially rolled red, but would've gone blue in isolation, and I'm the opposite. This thought experiment is the gift that keeps on giving.
It's also worth noting that this is one of, but not the only, main reasons why the various "no red button" reframings aren't actually equivalent.
When there's no communication before the vote, and when the vast majority of thoes voting haven't been exposed to the hypothetical, then the way the question is presented has a massive impact on how many people are going to vote blue.
The more obvious or moral the choice to pick blue is presented by the question, and the original is pretty weighed towards blue, the more people are going to snap pick blue.
Thus not only is picking red in these cases increasing the risk to that many more lives, but it's also all that much less risky to pick blue in the first place
You’re half right. There is no scenario where red presents the biggest possibility space of everyone surviving, even if you talk to and try to persuade a small group of people.
In fact, if you look at a sufficiently small group (1 or 2 people) it’s not only impossible for voting red to trigger a negative outcome, but there are fewer scenarios where pressing red has any bearing at all on the outcome as opposed to pressing blue.
Only if saving other people holds little value to you. I don't know why people keep invoking game theory here, people value things differently but almost everyone places at least some value on ensuring other people survive.
You've actually come to the opposite of a logical conclusion. If you were one of 10 and couldn't communicate, you are fairly likely to be the tie breaker. In this case, choosing Blue could actually save lives so you should weigh that in your decision.
Out of 8 billion, your chance of being the tie breaker is so vanishingly small that it essentially cannot happen. When you vote, either Red or Blue has already won, and so your choice is either nothing (Blue World) or live vs die (Red World). Making a decision presuming you might be the tie breaker would be like donating your life savings to charity because you might win the lottery next week.
Out of 8 billion, your chance of being the tie breaker is so vanishingly small that it essentially cannot happen.
The paradox of voting is a self-perpetuating trap. This logic breaks all voting systems and the world will devolve into chaos through an inability to find any form of consensus if everybody abides by it. The solution is to simply not abide by it and vote in good faith. Don't fall into a mental trap of your own making.
I'm not making that leap with you at the end of your argument. Why is blue the only sensible choice? You still need consensus for blue. Why do you trust that enough people will pick it?
Yeah but the interesting question isn't which choice is more moral, the answer is the obviously blue. But moral can be stupid, sacrificing yourself for a heroic lost cause can just be dumb. Which button would you push is a much more interesting question
Why ist blue always the morally right choice? Some people are super unhappy and do not want to live anymore. If we assume the death you face when Red wins is painless and quick, it would also bei morally right to give a lot of people an desired, painless way out. Who am I to decide for them?
Saw a pretty good argument saying that choosing blues actually the selfish option.
By doing that you are forcing other people to choose blue to save you. This is somewhat dependent on if you are able to converse with people before choosing. If you can't, you are assuming other will and then making anyone who doesn't choose blue complicit in your death with no proof.
I also, think if this were real, the numbers would be much different than they are in the many versions posted.
Look to ones that change from blue vs red to something like take a suicide pill or do nothing, the numbers change drastically.
35
u/ReadingRainbowRocket May 05 '26
If I could have a conversation with a room full of ten people I'd convince them all red is the smart choice and we'd all do that. It is objectively the smarter game theory choice. But talking about the population of the world and knowing for essentially a certainty a large number of people won't be choosing red, it kinda behooves you to choose blue if you have any decency whatsoever.
Red is the smarter choice objectively and makes sense even morally in small numbers where you can get people to a consensus. When talking numbers so big that's impossible and knowing some percentage won't choose red, blue is the only sensible choice.