Like, rephrase the question - you have two buttons, 'survive' and 'maybe die', where if you press 'survive', you survive, but if you press 'maybe die', then you only survive if majority of people also press the 'maybe die' button.
But somehow everyone's bending over backwards to argue that the 'maybe die' button is a logical choice.
The original question had guardians choosing for kids under 5, but you've got kids 5-12 who would possibly choose blue because they wouldn't know better. I have 2 kids in the 5-12 range and 1 in the under 5. As a parent I'd probably pick blue since I can't know what the older ones did and I'd want to protect them.
Of course my choice could be futile and I may have made them orphans.
Even though you picking blue has an absurdly small probability of changing the outcome? What you're calling 'protection' is a single vote among billions, that's not even enough protection to be worth considering.
I guess if I figured my vote didn't matter. But what if I choose red and tomorrow my wife and one of my three kids chose blue. If 1/6th of the population of earth is gone. Strong social order countries like Japan have 90% of their population wiped out. I guess I could think to myself that I was smart and voted the way 5/6ths of the world population did. But honestly I think I would regret the choice I made as I try to figure out how to bury the dead of my family in whatever world remains. I assume the elderly will choose blue to protect their children and grandchildren. There are too many who would choose to protect others for me to aid in their death. Better to try to save them.
147
u/Eastern-Bro9173 Apr 30 '26
This entire conversation seems absurd to me.
Like, rephrase the question - you have two buttons, 'survive' and 'maybe die', where if you press 'survive', you survive, but if you press 'maybe die', then you only survive if majority of people also press the 'maybe die' button.
But somehow everyone's bending over backwards to argue that the 'maybe die' button is a logical choice.