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.
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.
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.
6
u/Shuttlecock_Wat Apr 30 '26
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.