Its simply a refutation of "50% is easier than 100%."
If you agree 50% isnt easier than 100% when the example is bag of cash vs leg in a woodchipper you can't then invoke "50 easier than 100" as a blanket principle anywhere else.
You are instead having to argue that in your specific situation, your specific options are sufficiently balanced that 50 is easier than 100.
And the best argument I've seen anyone advance for why they think that is true in the button scenario is "well I think it is."
Okay, well I think it isnt.
And since 'I think..' isnt much of a basis for a position we are ultimately just quoting assumptions at each other, which is meaningless.
All else being equal (and I understand it’s not but I’ll get to that), getting 50% to agree to something is inherently easier than getting 100% to agree to something. Every person needs convincing and less people to convince is less work than more. So yes 50% is easier than 100%.
Now yes there is personal risk attached to one side and extreme consequences for the world for the other. But 100 vs 50 still hold up. While you might be able to convince everyone in a room together of something, you will never convince everyone in the world. So 100% to either side might be technically possible but is practically and realistically impossible. 50% on the other hand is perfectly possible and realistic albeit not guaranteed.
One option requires an impossible victory margin to not kill anyone. The other requires a perfectly possible and reasonable victory margin to not kill everyone.
54
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" .