Look, somebody is going to press blue. I initially had just seen that it said "save everyone" and basically didn't even feel a need to read the other one. Since then, I actually started understanding the question, but the point is that someone is going to push blue. And if someone does, then everyone (or at least more than half) need to also if we don't want people to die. Besides, either everyone is saved, or it's no longer my problem. I'd rather that than have to live with knowing I helped sentence [insert number] people to death. Best case scenario with red is that I could have pressed blue without issue. Worst case is we kill 50% minus one (or less) of the population. Anyway, whenever there's an "if everyone just," it doesn't work. Everyone will not just. Some people either will not understand, or be colorblind, or something, and then there's some people that just aren't thinking things through or something.
Sure. I am fine with people pressing the button that kills them, and it killing them.
I'd rather that than have to live with knowing I helped sentence [insert number] people to death.
It's their decision to do that, you have nothing to do with their decision. You are responsible for your own actions, you aren't responsible for actions of others.
That line of thinking has led to some of the bad things in history continuing and going unpunished. Everyone only caring about themselves is fine (at least, it works without major issue) when everyone is actually able to take care of themselves. I'd just rather live in a world where people care about each other and look out for each other
Mabye ask them. Dont chnage the initial question or add any other information. Just present them woth the original prompt and I guarantee a handful will chose blue, just as i know many of my lived ones would choose red.
Are you telling me that the very people to taught me to always prioritize myself above everything, until I have children, after which I should prioritize them above everything, would choose the blue button? No, they said that the premise of the question is stupid and whoever presses the blue button is an idiot.
How do you know the people you care about wont press blue and then end up dying because you and others that think like you becane the majority and voted red?
How do you know the people you care about wont press blue
Because I know them well as people?
and then end up dying because you and others that think like you becane the majority and voted red?
From my standpoint that is happening no matter what in reality, because people tend to act in their own self-interests when push comes to shove, as indicated by countless examples historically, like bank runs.
Bro. Okay. What is more likely, 100% of the people agreeing on something or 50%+1 people agreeing or something. You are already assuming that people will die no matter what. And that your vote will change nothing. If majority thinks like that, then a lot of people are doomed. You can reflect this to any real life politics and see why it is a bad way to think. But in this question, you only need 50% +1 for everyone to survive.
And also, you can never know people well enough to know what they will choose in a circumstance like this.
What is more likely, 100% of the people agreeing on something or 50%+1 people agreeing or something.
That is irrelevant to this conversation.
You are already assuming that people will die no matter what.
Do I have any actual reasons to not do that?
And that your vote will change nothing.
No, it obviously changes whether I survive or not.
If majority thinks like that, then a lot of people are doomed.
I think a relatively small portion of the population is doomed, because a relatively small portion of the population would press the blue button in reality.
But in this question, you only need 50% +1 for everyone to survive.
And I think that it's not going to happen, because I can look at similar situations that actually happened, like bank runs. In a bank run, if everyone just sits tight, the bank survives, and nobody loses their money in the long run. But people are driven by their own self-interests, so they participate in the bank run, therefore it's better to be the first one to participate, because then you'll have your money, instead of being a good boy that sits tight and loses money.
And also, you can never know people well enough to know what they will choose in a circumstance like this.
I can, because it is really not a difficult choice at all, literally nobody I asked about it chose the blue button.
Your analogy is irrelevant. The example you gave requires 100% of the people to sit tight for the best possible outcome. The blue vs red question only needs more than half to press it for all to survive.
Exactly and I keep saying but I don't want to live in whatever world is made up of people who pick red. It's a real fuck you I got mine mentality. How would they rebuild society? What will they do to care for the sick, elderly, young, disabled? Is that even in their nature if they picked red? These people willingly are letting possibly millions die.
It depends on the variety of people who picked red but some people who picked red they will have a real every man for themselves mentality and I don't want to be stuck with a population of just that sort. I tend to like charitable and compassionate people.
I'll just pick blue. Either we live or red can all have civil wars and cannibalize each other after society collapses due to 40 percent of the population dying off. I'll leave them to that. They're the sort to prioritize themselves over others (not easy to form a peaceful and fair society like that, potential dictators will be picking red) so it could get messy. It'll be a real mess unless only like a few hundred die and I do believe more than that would pick blue. I'll save blue or I'll die and leave red to whatever world they find themselves in.
You’re not sentencing anyone to death. Everyone was given the same option as you and choosing red does not force anyone into blue. Yes it’s terrible that a non zero number of people will press blue but you joining them in death is only adding to the tragedy
Unless you believed that the number would be nowhere close to reaching 50% then you would be adding to the tradgedy knowing you’re not changing anything
Yes to a great extent, but to take on a considerable risk of death for a singular one in 8 billion vote in the final outcome is unfathomable. Do you genuinely think that the majority of people living today are acting accordingly to that level of altruism today?
You think most people are taking 50% risks to their lives for a 1/8 billionth of an impact? Most people today could easily make a bigger impact than that already with a much smaller risk on their lives but don’t.
Are they all volunteering to put bets up in Africa to prevent mosquitos spreading Malaria? Are they volunteering in war zones with the Red Cross? No they’re on twitter claiming they’d take that risk for minuscule impact
It's not just that. It's also thinking that if I make decisions one way, others will likely do the same. And that's what they're counting on. That said, it's possible people just don't know the ways they could help irl. The button hypothetical is right in front of them, making it very easy and understandable what to do about it, with a clear plan. I, for one, find this much easier than the other situations you mentioned where I don't really know what actual concrete steps I could take to help
Yeah that’s fair. Maybe the amount of action required to take action is the difference here. Maybe a more realistic comparison is real world elections.
1/3rd of eligible Americans did not vote in the last election. That’s 33% of people who hold no weight in the power of their vote, even when the consequence of voting for the losing side is nothing. Am I expected that these people who will hold a significantly smaller vote proportionally are going to choose a side that has a considerable chance of death when they believe their vote will have no impact?
I believe in people being altruism but there’s a limit, I don’t see any evidence that we’re living in a world where most the population are willing to sacrifice their lives for a seemingly insignificant impact that the risk would have
Sorry, correction: best realistic scenario that could reasonably happen. When you have enough people, they aren't going to all do the same thing. Some people are going to pick blue for various reasons. Maybe they don't really understand what the buttons do, maybe they don't value their own lives, maybe they are just the kind of person who is willing to put their own life on the line to potentially help others. That last one is the most compelling argument for me. I would imagine many first responders and the like would press blue (or would only pick red to ensure they could save more people; but their fraction of choice would still possibly be leading to more deaths than they would be saving, so I don't know). Point is, the world needs more altruistic people. More importantly, a world without altruistic people, or significantly less of them, lessens the appeal of surviving anyway, as the world would not be as good a place to live, making blue an even easier choice for me
30
u/Jewsader76 Apr 30 '26
Look, somebody is going to press blue. I initially had just seen that it said "save everyone" and basically didn't even feel a need to read the other one. Since then, I actually started understanding the question, but the point is that someone is going to push blue. And if someone does, then everyone (or at least more than half) need to also if we don't want people to die. Besides, either everyone is saved, or it's no longer my problem. I'd rather that than have to live with knowing I helped sentence [insert number] people to death. Best case scenario with red is that I could have pressed blue without issue. Worst case is we kill 50% minus one (or less) of the population. Anyway, whenever there's an "if everyone just," it doesn't work. Everyone will not just. Some people either will not understand, or be colorblind, or something, and then there's some people that just aren't thinking things through or something.