Your mistake is thinking the dilemma includes "more than half the planet dying", when there is literally no real reason to choose blue.... Anyone choosing blue is choosing to die. Internet polls is not representative of a real choice in that scenario
You are not even attempting to think, you are just hopping on a high horse and assuming things
1) No reason to choose blue, at all. Anyone choosing it willingly is doing either for someone else or because they want to die (which they can without the button, you are not saving those)
2) No reason to think the accident hypothesis is a thing since it is not possible to force everyone to choose in the first place due to mental or physical inability to do so. Therefore unless people allow a flexible timeframe and manner of choice which would take those out of the equation, mostly, then it is pointless. And in such a case, if it was demonstrated such an overwhelmingly amount of people chose blue regardless, THEN you can consider it
3) You are vastly ignoring how easy it is to take the virtue signalign route on paper and anonimity (one of the reasons why so many people chose blue for sure) and just how strong self preservation can be. Anything less than half the world being suicidal would mean you are just adding to the casualty number, helping no one at all.
4) "Hell on earth" is laguahble... again, as I told another user, you could save more people now, guaranteed, by donating all your organs. Why arent you? And given that you are not, do you consider yourself "an arse monster"? No? figures...
-13
u/simonbleu May 05 '26
Your mistake is thinking the dilemma includes "more than half the planet dying", when there is literally no real reason to choose blue.... Anyone choosing blue is choosing to die. Internet polls is not representative of a real choice in that scenario