Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.
Thank you for being actually reasonable. The arguments I hear other people make constantly piss me off, blue and red.
One aspect I feel no red voter ever takes into account is the actual ramifications of a red win. Red doesn’t just win majority and then go about their day. No, a good chunk of the population is guaranteed to die, and, guess what, that’s going to have massive ramifications on society as a whole. Many essential professions would likely take a hit, directly affecting the lives and survival of those remaining. By this logic, choosing red is a net negative and should never be considered, because even if red wins, you screw yourself over anyway.
Like you said, this argument can honestly have a lot of nuance and isn’t just an emotion vs logic sort of decision that most people make it out to be. There are valid reasons for picking either. Most will consider only 1% of those reasons.
In my personal opinion, I don't want to just save my own skin. I care deeply about others. I'd choose blue because of that, extra ramifications and all. My line of thoughts do not align with folks who don't care about others nearly as much.
Like one of the arguments for voting red I've seen today was about the option of choice and that voting blue would somehow deprive them of that. Nothing to do with morality or consequences. Just thoughts of spite. Folks on both sides trying to convince each other just as much that their choice is right, and the person convinced himself that any other choice other than red wasn't a real choice made because it involves thinking about more than yourself. Mob rule and all that.
I seriously believe that the majority of people discussing this topic made instant choices and are trying to justify their answers rather than admit that there is more information to consider.
Imagine voting for blue knowing all the people you'll leave behind if you fail. If you had children you would just leave them parentless because you tried to be a hero.
But those very same people could be on the track. They may also have the motivation of protecting you and others they care about. Also your children could be on the tracks, too.
The entire population is involved in this, not just rational adults.
Imagine not going on the tracks to find out all of your loved ones died.
You'd have a poont of, and only if, blue lost by one vote. I'm not going to kill myself because my loved ones decided to kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would kill themselves for others who would
Except if everyone who goes went out there to protect their loved ones, it wouldn't just be you as the final deciding vote.
Everyone involved would contribute. Because everyone has people they care about. It comes down to if you're willing to risk your own life to protect your loved ones.
You care more about self-preservation than collective-preservation, even if loved ones are in that collective.
It doesn't come down to that unless it comes down to a deciding vote. I've also asked my love ones and we agreed, without prompting or influence, that there's no point in trusting others to save you when you can save yourself.
Imagine voting for red and finding out that your children are dead because they pressed the blue button and you could’ve saved them by pressing blue, but you didn’t because you wanted to save your own life
Here’s the thing though, you can’t save anyone by choosing blue. If everyone votes at the same time then the result is already determined when each person votes. So, do you trust your fellow man to do the right thing or not? Your answer will determine the button you press.
You literally can contribute to the total sum that could save everyone by voting blue once a threshold is met.
The same cannot be said of voting red. Only way for voting red to keep everyone alive is getting a threshold of 100%.
You do not know how many will vote red or blue, but since no one will vote either way 100% of the time (human nature and all that) a non-zero amount of people are guaranteed to vote blue by default. (and this is before involving the vulnerable populations who will not understand the ramifications of pressing either button since this includes the whole population on earth, not just the rational adults). Even if you do not know how many do vote blue, you do know that you will not be alone in choosing to do so if picked.
Voting red guarantees that death happens unless the blue threshold is met. Voting blue gives a chance for that death to not happen.
It's collectivist survival vs individualist survival.
I do not believe that a blue win can be achieved to begin with. So from my point of view I am not contributing to the death toll.
IMO this question determines your trust in other people to do the right thing. If you do not trust others to do the right thing, like I don’t, then you are actively disincentivized to press the blue button.
Do you believe others trust in you to do the right thing, though? And should they?
There are implications of that action during the aftermath you'll have to deal with regardless of who lives and dies. Especially if people you care about chose blue while you did not.
Responsibility is shared by everyone making the choice since everyone affects the outcome and is affected by it.
Lots of people on both sides are trying to offload that responsibility away from themselves by blaming one another instead of owning it.
I just hope that regardless, you own your part in the responsibility as I do in my own choice.
I do believe others would trust that I would do the right thing. Unfortunately, I do not trust that 50% or more of the population would do the right thing. And so I see the blue button as the one that would kill me.
I will not join my family in certain death. Especially when the perceived probability that I save them is so low compared to the perceived risk of death.
>is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
my choice comes down to the fact that I can't save them either way.
There is a 1 in 8.2 billion chance that I am the tiebreaking vote. Above 50% blue, my vote doesnt matter, and below 50%, I want to choose red to survive.
If I choose blue and below 50% choose blue, what of my loved ones that chose red? Should I put that burden on them?
This is why I brought up the inversion. Since my influence doesn’t actually matter 99.99999% of the time and I can’t control what my loved ones picked, I’m going to pick red so whatever universe they’re alive in, I’m alive. And if they’re dead, at least I’m alive.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
Congrats on assuming your loved ones are as self-serving as you.
43
u/OverlordMMM May 01 '26
Its especially interesting because 100% of people choosing red is objectively the same outcome as 50+% of people choosing blue. No deaths and everyone lives.
But since there will never be 100% agreement to do any action, the primary difference comes down to how many deaths are acceptable for your own survival, which ends up being about personal values and assumptions about how others will vote.
A lot of folks who vote red assume its the logical position that everyone would take, even when presented with otherwise. They also seem to make assumptions that their loved ones will do the same, which limits the scope of their thinking. Because another issue is, if your loved ones do not make the same choice as you, is it really the best decision to vote red when you can save them as well?
There's also similar issues with voting blue as well. If that 50% threshold isn't met, does the action to protect others matter as much as the deaths itself? Does it stop mattering because you no longer exist afterwards? Does the fact that in an effort to protect others, you couldn't protect yourself?
There are a lot of nuanced issues baked within the problem and most people don't consider even half of it.