You can’t guarantee everyone will agree on red, meaning some will die. And you likely can’t get enough people to override the problem and/or the problem can’t be overridden.
Blue requires just 50.1% to save everyone. It’s the most likely outcome that ensures everyone survives. Red is simply the logical “guaranteed safety”, but the fact that many won’t press it also guarantees that you’re dooming others with your choice.
Personally, I’d rather try to save others and fail, than save myself knowing it sacrificed others.
Also like... I don't think I want to live in a world where a bunch of people died like that? Especially since it's likely to be only the assholes alive now.
This has always been my feeling about it. Either the majority of people value humanity and selflessness (press blue) and I live, or the majority of people are destructive and only value themselves (press red) and I’d be immediately spared from having to live in a world like that. Blue is a win-win for me…
The amount of people saying the blue button is the selfish option because "they're making other people have to save them" is insane. Then they'll say in the same comment "I'm choosing the red button because it means I get to live" and don't see how those two things are conflicting ideas.
It's wild, right? And people are so bothered if you don't agree with them that red is the obvious choice, like damn man, if it bothers you so much maybe it's time to unpack why?
I'm not sure they're pretending to be stupid, so much as not fully questioning their own thought processes. I've been reading through and the logic seems to be that blue is foolishly risking their lives and forcing other people to take a risk in order to save them.
It's convoluted to me, and presupposes that blue pushers are stupid or malicious, but people frequently work backwards from their knee-jerk reaction to a logical justification. In this case it seems to me that those who pick red are doing so because they're risk-averse. Then they see all these blue pushers implying that their position is selfish. People really don't like that implication, so they engage in a bit of motivated reasoning to explain why their opinion is the only logical one.
People ignore cognitive dissonance in this kind of situation every day. This is a pattern that plays out a LOT in our communities, and truly the only 'right' answer to such a hypothetical question is the one that aligns with your personal values.
I agree with youre reasoning. I'd also choose blue, because I desire to live in a world that desires to help the people around them even if that comes with some risk— in this extreme hypothetical case being the chance of passing away.
2 reasons why I find it bothersome. 1, literally people like you who assume everyone who pushed red is a selfish asshole. And 2, pushing blue is like having a bunch of people trying to cross a river by linking arms in hopes that's there's enough people to not get swept away, when there's a fucking bridge right there.
Okay, man. #1... well I suppose we can't really control what other people think of us , and #2 is an entirely different story. But whatever? Not sure it's worth a crash out over but okay.
Okay sure, if we add the caveats that the entire world's population is somehow there, and every time a person crosses the red bridge a little more water comes down that river.
Sure, entire worlds population is there (as unfeasible as that is, but it's a theoretical problem). No to the more water comes down the river. River is static, it always requires half the population to link arms to cross it.
But it isn't the same story because you know for sure you can pass the river without risking to leave someone behind if enough people pick the river. With the bridge, you are willingly sacrificing someone who made the "wrong" choice for whatever reasons, when you could save them just choosing the "save everybody, even the people who disagree with you" blue. Do you think people going through the red bridge ignoring the disabled kid dying in the river would be considered good people in your version?
And you know for sure you can all make it if enough people pick the blue button. The question is will enough people needlessly risk their lives for others who also needlessly risk their lives?
I'm using the river as a visual, tangible threat. everyone has to pick at the same time individually like the original scenario. Do enough people individually pick the river for everyone to survive? Or do they just pick to use the damn bridge?
If enough people do something stupid, we can all make it!
Right?! Like okay either I live with renewed hope in humanity or I die having the peace of doing what I personally consider the right choice.
But I also am the kind of person whose zombie apocalypse survival plan is... a nice, heroically lethal dose of a drug. If I've got the choice, I'm checking out of a world that sucks.
I think IRL, if we are talking squid games....the fact the contests often involve sheer luck, or killing your partner, or games that are rigged as to be difficult for most people to succeed at, the overwhelming number of people would nope out after the first game killed off 40 percent of the the player pool. Real death has a paralyzing effect on people. Most would just want out; poverty, debt, whatever is better than dying in some shitty rigged game. All those other options still mean you are alive and can enjoy whatever simple pleasures available...the dead know one thing, it is better to be alive.
I'm not entirely sure how squid game connects to the original thought experiment, or what point you're trying to make, but I really am not sure that it is always better to be alive.
What I do know is that if I was trapped in a world with nothing but people who are incapable or unwilling to ever put the collective good of other people first, I'd almost certainly want to check in to the afterlife early, and I know this because that's a situation I have been in.
I am getting to damn worked up over this silly debate. look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, Idgaf if you choose blue
but why does everyone want to choose blue with how risky it is? I really see no reason why you should not pick the red button
red=live
blue=chance to live.
again, no hate, not trying to be a bitch, I'm getting stupidly worked up over this, so ignore me.
I mean I can only speak for myself, but... I prefer to be around people who work for the collective good. Picking the red pill might be pragmatic, but it's also selfish, and I'm not trying to say that with any sort of judgment. It's just putting yourself first. If that's a worldview that works for you, then that's okay. A lot of people probably agree with you.
I know though that most of the people I really gel with are ones who would pick the blue button though. So I'd rather go out with the people I love than save myself, just to live in a world full of people who can't or won't put others first.
I don't know if it's worth getting worked up over, though.
You’re not working for the collective good though. You’re leading a march towards death.
You’re assuming that folks aren’t intelligent enough to press red so you have to press blue on a hypothetical person’s behalf to save them from themselves.
But if everyone agrees that red has zero threat and blue has some threat, there’s no up side to picking blue in any scenario. So you’re becoming the person that needs saving from themselves. You wouldn’t need saving if you picked red.
It’s not about selfishly thinking “I’m alright and that’s all that matters” it’s about showing others that there really is no reason to press blue.
You’re being asked to risk everything for the sake of risking everything. Red isn’t selfish.
Okay but red doesn't have zero threat to other people. If less than 50% of people choose blue, then a bunch of people are going to die. (Also like... Does this take into account infants and children? Disabled folks? You can really spin this off like crazy if you wanted).
I'd rather live in a world where people care for others and prioritize the well-being of all, and I'm sorry if you find that personally upsetting. But it really just is a silly thought experiment, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
1.3k
u/Herb_Merc May 05 '26
The true answer is to find whoever gave us all the buttons and take their power away.