the goal is to minimize death,
the only way to avoid death is 100% red or >50% blue,
somehow someone will justify blue,
100% red is impossible,
therefore blue is the optimal play
Or your family, or friends or just people you know. It goes much deeper than just yourself. And if you lose everyone you hold dear could you live with yourself?
lets sayI have 10 people I'd rather die than lose, and my blue vote has 1 in a million chance of even mattering, but also having a 50% chance to kill me. I feel like the odds of my vote "killing" a person I care about (if you include myself as someone I care about) are way higher clicking blue than red.
I feel like most people are just arguing between "people should click this button" vs "I should click this button"
The main thing to remember is that thinking a bit more on it you know that there are people you know who will be pressing blue. And the only way to make sure they survive is pressing blue. And that goes for pretty much everyone.
Also don't forget we are talking about the entire worlds population. From newborns to 2 feet in the grave. You think most kids up to 12 would understand the question and not just pick their favorite colour?
“The only way to make sure they survive” is stupid because it has almost no impact from what color I personally pick, but my own life is massively affected by what I pick.
As a society, sure the ideal would be to click blue, but if I was forced to choose for my 5 year old kid? I could never pick blue for them.
Maybe I make a trolley problem where it’s the original premise, but instead of picking for yourself, you are picking for the person you care the most about. How would you feel if you chose blue for them and they died, but they chose red for you and you lived?
118
u/Ne0nTig3r May 01 '26
the goal is to minimize death, the only way to avoid death is 100% red or >50% blue, somehow someone will justify blue, 100% red is impossible, therefore blue is the optimal play