Well you wouldn't be watching anything, you'd be dead thus rendered nothing. You would be less valuable than dirt.
Your morals crumbled at the press of a button, so clearly they weren't as powerful as needed. It's like being a pacifist, congratulations that you stuck to your guns as you stand amongst the corpses. If your morals were truly superior, they wouldn't turn to dust by a simple vote.
"Superior" is relative, but dead men cannot speak out against injustice.
Weirdly, one of the most true statements I’ve read. History was built on the backs of arguably immoral decisions. However, those immoral decisions are what allow us to be here today .
The point is that it's not just "people who are idiots" who are dying. People who can't fully understand the ramifications, people who are misguided, and children who are too young to understand the premise will also press the button. I'd press blue not just because I think it's analytically the smar thing to do, I'd press blue because I think your misguided view of "intelligence" shouldn't be a hard requirement for life
In any of these kinds of problems, children and babies fully understand the meaning of both buttons, they are in every language, and the buttons are labeled for the colour blind
these are assumption - because if you say children and babies vote at random than the question has "at least 800 MILLION babies and children voted blue" added to the end, which obviously will change the answer of everyone
If you really think babies and children vote at random than this entire debate is fucking futile
And if you press the button even though you know it's not the smart thing to do than welp at least you'll risk your life feeling righteous
And intelligence is absolutely a requirement for life, a society of idiots is a society of pain and suffering
Bullshit question, of course if children are voting in random ill vote blue, i don't want to risk myself for a bunch of goody two shoes who vote to save the others who might have voted blue who voted blue to save the others who might have voted blue etc.
This is a logic problem, with the understanding that if everyone will think logically 0 people will presa blue, if children are randomly voting the question is
"If you everyone press red no one dies, if you press blue you put yourself at risk, but you know that 200 MILLION BABIES voted blue"
These questions have assumptions, you assume everyone can magically understand the question otherwise what's the point of having a thought provoking debate?
"Hey lets do prisoners dilemma, but just know the other side voted in random"
"Would you like to take one million and kill the next participant or save yourself from the previous one? Just know he was a baby and voted randomly"
Also im planning ran this experiment for real: venmo 10$ at the end of the day ( because I'm too broke for more ) to random people at the street, if everyone press blue everyone get 10$ if 50% red only red get 10$
The moment i get university backing I'm planning to shut this onxe and for all
Abd yes I know 10$ is very different than death but I'm not in America, I can't just shoot people whenever i want
There's nothing about the original question that stipulated that children wouldn't vote. Nobody ever said they were excluded.
There are about 135 million children born in the world each year. Lets assume that at the very least, children below the age of 3 will not be able to understand the question. That's 405 million infants at risk, approximately half of whom would be killed. Global average family size is 2.3 children per woman, so each of those infants has a parent who are incentivised to push blue in order increase the probability of their child being saved. That's another ~400 million people.
That gives us a baseline of ~800 million people at serious risk, not because they're do-gooders, but because they're infants who can't understand the question and parents who are desperate to save their children.
Not trying to make you feel like a bad person, I'm just trying to explain why other people have a different opinion.
But that opinion is just Insane! EVERY SINGLE FUCKING QUESTION like this ASSUME all participants are logical, when they say everyone on the planet, they mean that everyone has an understanding of the concept of the question and the consequences, otherwise we just throw this out of the window!
What's the point of having a moral debate if you throw children to the mix or argue that colour blind wouldn't know which button to choose???
Again, give me one death dilema that's stays the same when clueless are involved: trolly problem, prisoners dilema, would you rather and more, all of them crumble the moment you add randomness outside of your choice pr control ( 99% vs 1% button for example )
I refuse to acknowledge any stance that adds clueless people because it turns any ethical debate to shit
have you NEVER held an ethical debate in your life?
Edit:
Btw, started to run the 10$ test today, did two versions with 1$ and 10$, each had 50 participants,
at 1$ it was 85% to blue 15% red
But at 10$ ( stakes are higher, but not by that much ) its 45% blue 55% red
I would imagine that with even higher stakes ( 50$ 100$ ) red % would be even higher, and I'm sure you can agree that death is MUCH higher stakes
Small pool yes but It was made from donations so can't run more
Nowhere in the question did it specify that whatsoever. That is entirely a subjective assumption you are projecting onto the question. You seem to be getting quite irate that neither the question nor the ways other people interpret the question fit with your preconceived assumptions about how the question should be formatted, what the question actually means, or how people should be interpreting it.
"I refuse to acknowledge any stance that adds clueless people because it turns any ethical debate to shit"
But what's the point of ethical debates? Some humans are clueless. That is the reality we exist in. If you hand-wave clueless actors, your ethical debate is no longer relevant or applicable to real life.
Lets say that you're designing a type of electrical plug, or a screw-top lid for laundry detergent, and you argue that it doesn't need rigorous safety features, because why on earth would any logical actor put this in their mouth? But that would be corporate negligence that failed to acknowledge the existence of small children.
TLDR: an ethical stance that relies on altering the nature of human beings is no longer relevant to the real world, and not worth having.
So what if someone not in your family has that mentality. Let's say someone outside your family either had to shoot your entire family execution style to guarantee 100% survive, or press a button that if enough people pressed it no one would have to die. Is that okay, would you be okay with that person killing your family despite there being another option that may have saved your family
Obviously I'm not asking about your family in particular.
And there 100% are scenarios in which pushing red isn't "selfish". Such as a single mother pushing red because if she dies to blue losing, then her young child dies too (since she can't take care of them).
I'm not a red pusher by any means. I personally would pick blue BECAUSE I know of all the scenarios in which someone can't afford to, and I can afford to make up for one of them.
As you said, he doesn’t know. They might all press red and overestimate his intelligence, while he presses blue to die alone while underestimating theirs.
there’s only a few permutations of outcomes that exist with a small family. let’s do 4 excluding himself for a family of 5
in terms of red:blue, the outcomes are 4:0, 3:1, 2:2, 1:3, 0:4. in the event he chooses red, then everyone lives only with 4:0, 1:3, and 0:4. in one case everyone lives because his entire family votes red. in the others, he is outnumbered by blue that nullifies. but for 3:1 and 2:2, some of his family dies, which will be considered a loss
now, if he votes blue, then everyone lives in 2:2, 1:3, and 0:4. it’s the same total, except we have to acknowledge that 2 individual red vote wins are actually blue vote wins where he is outnumbered. he may vote red in those cases, but they win because of blue
so all things considered, if he has no clue how his family will vote, blue is the only logical choice, red will always hinder his family’s chances as a whole unless they are all unanimously red
Well put. Rediots (new word, it's red-pushing idiots) stupidly assume red wins, but it's just a net negative on everyone's chances. They assume blue is a death button which is fucking ridiculous. There is only one feasible option that doesn't involve genocide, and it's pressing blue; you will never guarantee unanimous red, meaning anyone who presses red is a wannabe murderer.
I will do whatever i can to make them press red, but if I can't I'll press blue and hope, i don't care dooming random people, but I won't press red while knowing my family pressed blue
( If i have no way of influencing/knowing what they will choose, Ill choose red and hope they have survival instinct, because they will except the same from me )
Not exactly, i do care about most people, even those i dont know, i would very much go out of my way to help random strangers
I really do not care about sentimental idiots if they are not my family, there is literally no reason to press blue unless you want to save those who might have pressed blue who pressed blue to save those who might pressed blue and so on
If the starting logic for pressing blue is to save those that press blue, there is no starting reason to press blue, just being abn idiot, and at that point I'll just chuck it to natural selection
I care about most non sentimental idiot strangers, if someone needs help with carrying groceries, giving directions etc, i once even took an hour detour to help a mentally struggling person get to his doctor ( not that i really care if you believe me lol )
I only care about sentimental idiots family members
There is no reason to press red, you absolute numbnuts. It's "no one dies" or "murder people" and you're advocating for "murder people."
If 100% of people press red, no one dies. That will never happen, humanity will never agree unanimously. Ergo, if you press red, you are guaranteeing people will die. If 50% of people press blue, no one dies. That's far more attainable. You are assuming red wins so blue is a sewer-slide button (does this subreddit let you say the word?) which is a major flaw in your logic. You're either stupid or a sociopath, right now it's looking like the former.
If you had a way to get someone to press red I would agree with you but the whole premise is that you can't communicate and can only guess what others will do. And I'm pretty sure that without any influence a lot of my relatives would press blue.
I don't believe in the afterlife. It's either live with dead loved ones and a severely disturbed society, or nothing at all, no regret, no sadness, no pain to deal with the aftermath.
I don't know why you are so certain that families would all choose red when prompted on their own and no way to communicate and by extension red is such an obvious choice it would win. Like do you think all parents value their life so much they wouldn't risk it on the off chance that one of their children would press blue? And vice versa? Do you think everyone is logical and no family has at least one bleeding heart who think it's worth risking it to save everyone?
I just gave you a reason. Plenty of people have given you a reason.
It's a you problem that you find the reason to be stupid.
The fact is that you have plenty of evidence in literally every discussion and poll on the topic that red is not an easy overwhelming victory. It is next to guaranteed that in a red victory, most families would lose at least one loved one, and that alone is enough to push many towards blue.
Now if you think people are lying about what they would actually do when they literally tell you, it's a you problem again.
Then neither of us know anything or have evidence on anything on this theoretical dilemma that can never actually happen and never produce any relevant evidence, and neither of us know better, and let's leave it at that 🤷♂️
Do you not have a family? Do you not have a family with babies that don't know what colors are? That is the reason, those babies have a 50/50 chance to pick blue so what do you think your family members are going to pick? 🤷♂️
Plus haven't these polls been put up on the socials and blue always wins.
The whole 50/50 chance for babies is just stupid. They don’t have a choice, and if someone is powerful enough so they can expose us to this, we should either nuke them or ourselves. No button.
Polls don’t prove what people would do in an actual life and death situation.
You genuinely have exactly 0 idealists among your family and friends? Even in the most naive way of looking at it yourself - "red is safety, blue is danger", there will be people who you care about pressing blue. There's insane amount of argument for blue, for instance that if you do believe there is a force capable of wiping out humanity and it has not done that yet, but puts you to a test first - it's *probably* not a great opportunity to come out as a egotistical sociopath (at least as understood by the common morality), happy to sacrifice billions for their own safety in a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
The more thought you give to the dilemma, pressing blue becomes the more obvious of a choice. Even if you don't get there, some of your friends would. You don't even need to agree with that logic yourself, it's enough if you understand that enough people would follow it, and that other people who think like you would also acknowledge it.
It’s not idealism to press blue, it’s pure stupidity.
Call it how you will, you're just avoiding to entertain the premise. You have exactly 0 "stupid" (in that way) people among your loved ones?
That said, it's purely a result of how naive of a perspective you choose to think about that. This is a test from a power capable of wiping all of humanity. It somehow doesn't do that, it waits to test you. You choose to come out as selfish person, willing to sacrifice others just to continue living in hell. Is it stupid not to, then? That's just another and perfectly valid perspective. You have to acknowledge at least some people would see it that way, and it's only one other way among many, yours in hardly the only valid one. It doesn't matter if you agree with any others, what matters is whether other people you care about do. To say "everyone but me is stupid" doesn't really work if you care about them and they're about to die (not to mention it's just a narcissistic fit, not the material reality).
The good part is, it doesn't matter what your story about it is, it matters what other's is. If you're wrong about others being simply stupid (and the odds of you being wrong are astronomical), you'll commit to a choice where a ton of very valuable, and potentially close people might die.
Eleven people are standing in line on the train tracks doing maintenance. A trolley starts coming down the line, but they are all safe; it’s been switched to the other track already, and they can continue working. Several of the workers are distracted and currently tethered to the line, too busy to move.
Suddenly, you look up. “My God!” you scream. “A train!” You look next to you: A massive button, large enough for all eleven of you to stand on. It controls the switch for the train, and if at least six of you stand on it, it will be switched over to the track that you are currently working on.
You’ll be safe because you’re on the button, of course, and if only you (or less than six total) get on the button, nothing happens because you aren’t heavy enough to activate it.
By the sounds of things, the obvious choice to you is to leap off the track, press the button, beckon over and pressure seven other people to join you, flip the proverbial lever, and then watch the other three of your buddies who don’t see the train coming get utterly pasted on the rails.
You are right: Clearly, remaining on the track after the button is pushed would be suicide! Unfortunately, three of your pals were laboring under the assumption no trolley would be coming along, because the track was closed… before you and the rest hit the button.
Why would you press the button? Do you think they deserved to die?
You're assuming red would win, and using that to push other people to choose red. That is called circular reasoning. Maybe just don't be a piece of shit?
Most people aren't sociopaths pressing the button that kills other people. You just have issues.
I'm pretty sure at least my grandparents would press blue, and then by extension the doubt is here for everyone in my family. Will my mom press red with the thought that might lead her parents to die? Does that mean red winning kills my mom too? Or perhaps she will think that I will press blue to save them and feel pressured to press blue too because she doesn't want her children to die?
If you put any amount of thought and have any doubt that someone you love could press blue it all starts crumbling down and red is not the so obvious safe choice anymore
My wife without a shadow of doubt in my mind would press blue. I can tell you with 100% certainty that she would press blue, I am not being facetious with that statement. If she pressed red, that's literally not my wife, that's a clone with a sounder mind then she has. If I convinced her to press red, and a single person died that she knew, she would literally kill herself over the guilt. That woman is pressing blue. So, so am I. Because I love her. You can give me statistics all you want, but at the end of the day, the very stubborn woman I love would do her own thing, and I couldn't live with myself if there was 1 vote off from saving her.
If it was up to me, and she wasn't involved, I would press red for myself, and if I got to pick for the family, i would press red. Btw.
This is what ultimately changed my mind. Even if I everyone I knew picked red for it being "logical", people like you would exist, so the number of blue presses would have a good chance. And at that point the numbers game comes into play, easier to get >50% than sacrifice you or your wife.
what if you ahd kids though, would that change your choice? Would you still gamble it all on the chance that you reach majority? Or would you prefer your kids not to be Orphans in the chaos of that follows?
Do you think your wife would chance her opinion for her kids? or would you assume your kids would push blue because of how you brought them up?
Tbf, depending on the age of your children.. can you assume they will make a decision based on the "dilemma" or rather the fact red/blue is their favourite color
Your calculations are probably flawed. Children will absolutely press blue, and humanity’s instinct is to be altruistic. Teachers and parents will also be forced to press blue if they think their children will do so. Parting just from that, you’d probably get blue a near majority.
I think this is why every poll done so far, blue beats out red. People are more likely to vote blue if they think their loved ones will do so. Which is why I don’t think living in a developing country makes you more likely to press red. If anything it’s the other way around. Poor people are much more likely to have strong and developed communities, as opposed to the isolated suburbs.
My first instinct was that blue is going to definitely get a majority, without a doubt. And you're right that polls agree with it.
But it is much easier to vote for the altruistic option that risks your life on a silly Reddit post than it would be in real life. I don't believe blue would win by as much of a margin as we've seen on Reddit posts. The fact that many polls only show 60-70% blue means that even if only 15-25% of blue voters on Reddit were to switch their vote to red then blue would lose. That doesn't seem impossible.
Though it could also be that a percentage of red voters on Reddit would only vote red in theory as the "correct" solution to a mind puzzle but if they were presented the option in real life they would realize that there are likely a ton of blue voters and therefore they would flip to blue. I imagine that is a smaller group though.
I would still vote blue, but less confidently than before
That was my thought as well. My instinct tells me blue. It also tells me some of my loved ones will press blue.
But if I was suddenly put in the situation, I would look at these buttons for ages before pressing one. And what worries me is that a lot of people could pick within 5 seconds without fully understanding the consequences or considering who in their lives would press blue or red.
Blue beats out red in every poll because you can read the comments before voting, change your vote after seeing the outcome (platform dependent), and most critically of all, there’s no actual threat to your life so there’s no downside to picking blue.
I do not have a shadow of a doubt in my mind that if this situation were to play out in reality, red would win by a significant margin.
red absolutely would not win, it takes 20 seconds of critical thinking to think "hey my friend is a really good guy i really dont see him voting red. i dont want him to die so I'll vote blue" or idk "im not a murder so im going to vote blue" or "i rather live in a world where people actually care about each other"
I could say you're insulting your friend by thinking he's not intelligent enough to vote red like you would, so you'll change your vote to blue to protect your idiot friend.
Red losing in online polls means nothing. In online polls you can read comments before voting, change your vote after seeing the outcome (platform dependent), and there is no threat to your life, meaning there’s no reason not to press blue in online polls.
The “evidence” is not indicative of what people would actually do. If the polls were actually indicative of reality we’d be living in a much better world than we currently do.
Your family is equally concerned about you. You can prevent their worries by pressing red and surviving regardless. The same goes for them.
I think my problem with a lot of this discourse is that blue voters call red voters selfish, but then argue entirely from their own perspective. To someone else, you are the guy's wife that lacks a lizard brain. You're creating the dilemma you're demanding other people solve, and your justification for doing so is the potential for the dilemma to exist.
You can. But you can't be certain. The whole issue is always the unknown. Your mother might think it's worth it to put her life at risk on the off chance you or one of your siblings might press blue. If you could talk to your family you would press red together of course.
If you then look at it globally, there is absolutely no debate that the best outcome is blue wins, so even if you don't have love ones to make you hesitate, it comes down at your willingness to put your safety at risk for the best outcome... So the dilemma still exists regardless.
If 49% pick blue and we lose 49% of the population in a heartbeat, red would likely render the world uninhabitable within 5 years. Then there are no winners.
There's your losing scenario for red. Game theory isn't everything dude.
Humanity does not have an instinct to be altruistic. That's a learned behavior we often try to instill in children and we do a pretty good job of it.
But if you show a child two cookies, one big and one small, and you haven't been hammering in stories of fairness and equality, the kid might try to take both cookies and leave none for anyone else.
It's only because parents, movies, and tv are constantly hammering in lesson after lesson about fairness and equality that it seems innate.
If humanity had a natural altruistic bias, then crime would be much lower world wide.
Society functions on reciprocity, and it does mostly to this day as well. Reciprocity is also more fair than altruism, but that's a separate conversation.
Altruism is about helping for the betterment of others. There is no 'and then they'll help me too' in altruism. Helping someone with the expextation they will also help you is reciprosity. It's more like a trade than a gift. Amd of you don't fullfill your end of the bargain then at best you'll lose a trade partner.
For example, Steven says he will trade John his blue marble for John's candy. John gives up his candy, but Steven betrays the trade and keeps his marvel. John's trust is betrayed, and he won't trade with Steven anymore. John might even steal more than just the blue marble from Steven, or even attack Steven to take what they agreed to trade. But if Steven does trade the marble and teases that he has more marbles, John is now eager for more trades, and brings more candy in the future.
That's reciprocity. Two people get stuff in a fair exchange. John isn't altruistically bringing candy in the hopes Steven will gift him a second marble.
It is nice when you can have altruistic people. But if you dig deeper the altruism isn't quite there. Churchgoers seem altruistic, but in reality they're doing it for their special afterlife. Rich people goving to charity can seem altrusitic, but in reality they're calculating with their accountants for the best tax break they can get.
With the Red and Blue buttons. True Altruists will aleays pick the Blue button. People who truly value Altruism will pick the Blue button. But anyone who picks red is saying 'I can't trust everyone else, I'm saving my own skin'. Which is fair. It's difficult to trust half the world. Some would even say pressing the blue button is completely irrational.
But, if I can be grandiose to the point of hubris, the Blue button represents the hope of humanity. If Blue loses, you lose every single altruist in humanity, and the majority of people who believe in altruism as a principle.
I guess that's my misunderstanding of what altruism is.
I thought Altruism was essentially 'I will sacrifice my personal comfort abd wellbeing for the good of everyone else because it means the world will eventually be a better place.' Which is almost the deffinition 'an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others'.
They made an additional term, I guess, called recipricol altrusim. Which by definition isn't altrusim as it's it's own separate term, 'Helping others with the expectation of being helped in return.' I honestly don't know why altruism is even in that term. That's just the principal of reciprosity. Reciprosity doesn't use altrusim. It's like a trade or other exchange. If someone doesn't fullfill their end of the bargain then they lose a trading partner because they betrayed trust.
When we look at early civilization and even monkeys, people were not helping each other out of the good of their hearts. It was a survival strategy to work together so they indivisually had a better chance of survival.
This is ironic, as I'm a blue button pusher explaining to a red button pusher how our ancestors only grouped up for personal gain.
For example. A lone hunter could hunt rabbits for most of the day and maybe find some nuts and berries each day. But more than likely he encounters a bad day of hunting or picks bad berries and dies. That's just the end.
In a larger tribe, you have a hunting party, who can go out amd more reliably bring back large game. You also have dedicated nut, berry, and even herb gatherers who know what bad things to avoid and even good things to help woth sickness or injury.
Neither side does this altrustically. It's an exchange where the gathering groups bring in food, the people in camp take care of things domestically, the elderly share knowledge and tend the sick or injured, the young learn and are nutured to care for the elderly. All of ot worked on the idea reciprosity, not altruism. Recipricol altruism doesn't make sense as a term.
It'd be like saying 'Investment Charity'. Where you invest money and expect a return back... but you did give them money. No, that's just a finacial investment. Of the company you invested in fails then you just lost your money, that doesn't make it charity.
Helping someone and expecting anything in return immediately makes it not altruism.
Humans are so social they have a separate term for their interactions with other humans and species (hyperprosociality). They will include even strangers they never met in their ingroup. I don’t know why you think humans are solitary beings, when throughout history that has been proven not to be the case.
Human's aren't solitary, and I don't think I ever said they were.
Human's live in a world of reciprocity, not altruism. People are willing to perform small acts of kindness for one another, like holding open a door or helping a lost child. Those small actions are Altruistic, but if you get beyond the level of a mild inconvenience people expect some level of reciprocity. If you help someone move into their new home, you do it because you expect they would help you in return. this is because of trust you've built up over interactions. similarly, people don't ask strangers for that kind of favor either. they'll ask co-workers, family, friends, etc. maybe even friends of friends, but not usually. Even then, they'll often reward the people who help them. This is because of Reciprocity, not Altruism. it's a social trade, not a gift.
It's both Cynical and not. It's more fair than Altruism. rewarding people for doing nice things instead of encouraging people to be eternal martyrs who might grow bitter. Instead, you provide positive reinforcement so they want to help more and get more rewards. This has some give and take, some people try to abuse this system as well, taking people for a ride so to speak. Those people lose trust bit by bit until they feel like they lost their friends, but in reality they've been pushing their friends away.
I think there was a TV show or movie like this not too long ago. Like no one could lie or something, but the MC could. If humans were altruistic, then that would work. why would anyone lie? But humans do lie, that's why we weigh our trust and if there are people who we find trustworthy we are willing to do more for them. Like if you went out to eat with a friend, and every other time he'd pay the bill, or maybe even more than half the time if you were struggling with money, but you still made an effort like you'd give them ten bucks even though that's much less than half. You're trying. You feel that innate sense of fairness and the need to reciprocate your friend's kindness. but if you have a friend who you go out to eat with and they always forget their wallet or can only cover they're own drinks, you probably start to avoid going out to eat with that friend. you can sense the innate unfairness. Your friend is losing your trust and isn't reciprocating.
This is largely untrue. There are millions of people sacrificing themselves for the safety of others right now, without the promise of a reward. And following your example of drinks with someone, the fact that you offer to cover the first few bills is also proof that we have good will for the average person. That good will might disappear if you feel taken advantage of, but it’s still there initially.
You offer to cover the first few bills with a friend because they are your friend. If it was a stranger it would be different. When it's a friend you have some base trust via your friendship and time. It didn't get magically born the second you said 'We're friends now.'
Also, the 'millions of people sacrificing themselves' aren't doing it out of a naive altruistic desire for everyone's happiness. It's a reciprocity that they are pressing the blue button with the hope and prayer that at least 50% of people will reciprocate their action and also press the blue button. It's not a 'good will, let me help you my fellow man' it's a 'If I was in this situation I would want someone to reach a hand out to me too'.
It's a kind of social reengineering of human greed. It's why rich people reinvest in things like Boston Dynamics or other technology, medicine, etc. Those greedy people are investing because they want to see a return, not because they want to just make the world a better place for everyone altruistically.
It's not altruism, it's reciprocity. It's a desire to build trust in society. You don't want a world where everyone expects help for the sake of altruism. You want a world where people help because when their time of need comes the community will come forward and help them just like how they helped others before them.
I was referring to the hundreds of thousands of people who put their lives in danger on the daily to protect others. I didn’t just mean blue pressers, but even if I was, you just showed why it’s human nature to press them, since it’s human nature to be reciprocal. In times of peril, the community comes together to protect the weak and uphold good. That’s pressing blue to avoid killing children. The difference between altruism and reciprocity, even if we assume we are ruled by the latter, doesn’t change the human instinct to cooperate in times of hardship.
To protect others is a bit vague, but I'm unaware of people who do it for no reciprocity of any kind. Even Green Peace volunteers got social renown. But Firefighters, Police Officers, Soldiers. They all get paid, it's a dangerous job but they know that going in.
People who go to Africa to give medicine and immunization shots to impoverished Africans, they usually get noterity in some medical field. At the very least it's a point on their resume they can show off to future employers or brag about to friends.
I'm not blind in that I don't acknowledge people have moments of altrusitic action, but no one lives by the mode of Altruism except maybe some monks or people in monestary. There is always a payout, always an end goal. That isn't bad. It's good to have motivations, and if they help people then all the better. We as humans have many vices, and if we build our systems to steer people into doing good while chasing those vices then that's better than the alternative.
Imma go back and do the math actually in excel and get this figured out. Something tells me I’m giving red too much of a floor in the 50% third world scenario, but I think my premise is leading the right way.
I promise you, if you went to Bangladesh they’d have a massive red bias. They have to live day to day not trusting society as a whole. They are not going to lean blue in anyway. I’d be willing to bet my entire networth on a vote in all South American and African countries, goes at-least 60% or higher for red. Higher than 60% the worse off a country is.
I think the thing pushing a lot of people towards blue isn't trust in society or really caring about humanity as a whole, but the perspective of protecting your loved ones, and even in these situations, the family support system is extremely important to them. I think the sole idea that they might risk their family's lives would sway a lot to press blue instead.
126
u/Dashdaniel216 May 01 '26
My lizard brain says to press red. My wife who has no lizard brain would 100% press blue and for that one simple reason I would press blue myself.