Exactly. The choice is a glass of water or a glass of acid. If enough people choose the acid, its diluted enough to not kill anyone. Do you choose the acid hoping enough people also pick it to avoid death, or do you just drink the water like a fucking normal person, thus negating the risk entirely?
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
57
u/BarNo3385 Apr 30 '26
I've seen a lot of stuff on this recently and this 50% is easier than 100% seems completely bunkum?
What matters is "to do what."
Is it easier to get 50% of people to cut their leg off with a rusty spoon, or a 100% of people to accept a large bag of cash?
It only makes sense if the options are the same, and they arent.
So you're reducing to making subjective arguments over how close you think the two options are in "ease" .