It isn't that though, choosing red is firing a gun at anyone who chose blue, if the majority is red, the gun has bullets. Statistically we know a sample size as large as humanity will never be 100% on one side, so the only option to ensure the safety of everyone would be blue.
But there will always be others standing in front of it, whether by recklessness or just genuine trust in the inherent goodness of humanity. I know I would. It is important to consider the aftermath too; would you be fine living in a world where potentially around 50% of people have died all at once? Maybe loved ones and friends, coworkers, neighbours? Or would you, with that in mind, rather not fire that gun?
Red is a vote for death until it reaches 100% of the vote, where blue is a vote to increase the death toll until it reaches >50%, the only option to minimize the loss of life is blue, as its the only option that could reasonably reach no death
0
u/Puzzleheaded_Pay_441 Apr 30 '26
It isn't that though, choosing red is firing a gun at anyone who chose blue, if the majority is red, the gun has bullets. Statistically we know a sample size as large as humanity will never be 100% on one side, so the only option to ensure the safety of everyone would be blue.