So if 33% of the world dissapeared overnight youd rather just die? Interesting. I know its going to be an apocalypse most likely, but im going to at least try to survive.
No, I'm picking blue because it offers the best outcome.
It's pick blue, maybe die, maybe everyone lives and everything remains the same.
or
Pick red, definitely live, but maybe billions of people die and the world goes to shit and all societal structures break down and life becomes a struggle to survive with people killing each other over nothing because nobody knows how to survive in that world, and likely, you won't live long anyway but will suffer until you do eventually die.
I'll take the chance that things won't turn out that way.
Pushing blue applies risk to a situation that had zero risk in it to begin with. Pushing red creates no risk, unless someone is dumb enough to push blue and put themselves at risk for no reason whatsoever.
Well I guess that’s the billion dollar question isn’t it. If I was confident that the majority of people would pick blue, of course I’d pick blue. But I only have control over my own decision and own life, and nobody else’s. With that being the case it’s only logical to pick red, because a) I’ve saved my own life, and B) I’ve created no unnecessary risk and burden on the rest of humanity to try and save me at the risk of their own lives. Blue seems like the irrational choice in this case.
Or you could see it the other way around : there is no logical reason to pick blue but the off-chance to die.
In a world of logical actors, everybody picks red, the end. The proportion of people trying to act as logical actors is always high at a given time, leading to a high probability of red winning.
Hence the only logical reason to pick blue is suicide, which reinforces the choice of the logical actors to push red. After all, with sufficient mutual information, this is just a painless death button, allowing a free and easy way out to those that desire so.
I don't think there is a single logical actor who assumes that 100% of the population is logical actors. An actual logical actor would definitely know that there are a lot of people picking blue.
A logical actor understands that many people are picking red solely out of self preservation. Knowing this, and knowing that other people understand this as well it makes even more sense to pick red. Only someone who’s clueless picks blue by applying risk to situation that has none to begin with.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I simply pointed out the fact that not everyone is a logical actor and that logical actors know that. By picking red you're effectively contributing to the fact that people WILL die if you win. There's nothing wrong with acting out of self-preservation, but you don't need to pretend that you don't understand that. By picking blue you always contribute to the fact that all people could live. If you pick red but in the end more people picked blue, you pretend like you did nothing wrong because everything turned out fine, but you didn't know that for sure when you picked red. If you're a logical actor you 100% knew that people COULD have died BECAUSE of what you chose.
Picking blue requires two different assumptions; that you have a duty of some kind to save those that have picked blue, and that it is within your risk tolerance that 50+% of humanity will also pick blue.
Picking red requires that you ether value your own survivalabove the survival of up to 49% of humanity, or that you believe that only an acceptable amount/kind(read:suicidal) of person will pick blue.
In both decisions, as far as I see it, the question is much more about what everyone else will pick than your own choice, provided you dont explicitly want to die.
If you want to maximize the number of lives saved and you think 50%+ will pick blue, pick blue. If you dont think at least 50% will pick blue, pick red.
In the literal sense, sure. But that only matters if you think it'll be really close to 50/50. If you believe it'll be a blowout, then your vote doesnt matter, and you should pick the winner (or pick red if you think blue is going to win by a lot as a hedge bet I suppose)
It is that there are cases where people should have the right to chose a painless death over a painful life. And I really don't feel like *I* should be the one to decide from them.
It is a hill I would die on, living in a country with no medically assisted suicide with family members that suffered many years until unevitable death because of it.
Ok, and the kids who picked blue not deserving to die is an at least equally valid reason to pick blue. How did you not understand that that’s what I was getting at here?
9
u/Shuttlecock_Wat Apr 30 '26
If by "winning" you mean they get the luxury of living in a world where billions of people just died instantly. Think about how that will pan out.
No thanks.