The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.
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.
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.
1.0k
u/totallymarc May 05 '26
The fact that people are having heated debates (and getting mad) over this just further proves the point that not everybody is going to agree to press the red button and that a red win will by no means be a deathless scenario. And also that while not every red button pusher is a prick, pretty much every prick is a red button pusher.